This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The question in the headline begs an answer.

An optimist would say “yes.”  A pessimist would say “no.”

I – a realist, even if, on occasion, I am not – would say “maybe.”

That’s also what a retired lobbyist – me – would say to keep his options open.

In the Washington Post, columnist George Will produced a cogent paragraph to describe weird developments in 2022 even as he looked forward to 2023:

“The strangeness of 2022 was exemplified by the extravagant investment of time, brain cells and media passion in fretting about Twitter.  This medium, which humanity progressed without for 10 millennia, suddenly seemed to some worrywarts as vital as oxygen and proteins, and as perishable as the planet.  Progressives, constantly hungering for cataclysms (“Democracy is dying!” “Earth is boiling!”), worried that an end of politically motivated, government-influenced curating of content on Twitter, which is a 16-year-old adolescent, might doom this 246-year-old nation. Only 23 per cent of Americans, disproportionately progressives, use Twitter, and 25 per cent of the 23 per cent generate 97 per cent of the tweets.”

So, let’s forget about Twitter even as we watch Elon Musk lose more reputation, not to mention money.

The recent issue of Atlantic Magazine contained a story on the prospects for 2023.  It was written by Tom Nichols and here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“Throughout 2022, I’ve worried a lot.  I’ve had plenty of smaller gripes — that is my nature as a professional curmudgeon — but mostly, I’ve been concerned about world war, the rule of law, and the collapse of democracy.

“But here at the end of the year, I am optimistic, which is a surprise even to me.

“Before we head off into 2023, let’s think about why the past year wasn’t as bad as we might think, and why the coming year might even be better.”

Nichols opined that the “single most important story of the year” was the resilience of democracy.

“Two great events (or, more accurately, non-events) reassured me as part of that heartening narrative:  The Russians failed to win a war in Europe, and anti-democratic candidates failed to rebound in America.

“These were not small things, and indeed, I sometimes worry that Americans underestimate just how close to disaster we all came in 2022.  I am not prone to World War II metaphors, but I was moved enough by the mid-term elections to refer to them as ‘democracy’s Dunkirk.’ 

“In 2022, the West chose to help Ukraine defend itself, and the voters chose to protect democracy.  In fact, the American system is now engaged in a certain amount of healing, even if it doesn’t feel that way all the time.

“Election deniers, led by Kari Lake in Arizona, are regularly being told by the judicial system to go pound sand.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is, so far, a shambolic and pitiful mess.

“Congress, with something that these days looks like a smidge of bi-partisanship, has sent a bill with the Electoral Count Reform Act to President Joe Biden’s desk, adding some insurance against any further attempts at electoral-vote chicanery.”

Meanwhile, Nichols reported, there have consequences for coup plotters, seditionists, and other criminals, including multi-year prison sentences.

Here are a few other positive signs:

• Musk proved to us that billions of dollars cannot buy everything, and especially not competence or common sense. Tesla stock, the source of so much of Musk’s fortune, has lost more than $800 billion — that’s billion, with a B — in value, most of it vanishing after Musk’s decision to detonate his reputation.
• Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, meanwhile, finally dumped her affiliation as a Democrat, a move that was almost certainly prompted less by ideology than by her realization that she is deeply unpopular among Democrats and was likely to lose a primary in her own party.  Plus, in terms of organization in Congress, she is still likely to caucus with Democrats, if they let her in the front door.
• The collective national shrug at Trump’s entry into the GOP presidential race tends to confirm that 2022 was a bad year for narcissism.

So, back to the question. Will 2023 be better or worse than 2022?  My answer – maybe – rests on a basic perception.  All of us – me included – have a tendency to look ahead and find reasons to be pessimistic.  That includes our focus on media analysts who often focus on the negative. 

But, instead, we should look ahead, not just with optimism and not just with pessimism, but with realism.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The question in the headline begs an answer.

An optimist would say “yes.”  A pessimist would say “no.”

I – a realist, even if, on occasion, I am not – would say “maybe.”

That’s also what a retired lobbyist – me – would say to keep his options open.

In the Washington Post, columnist George Will produced a cogent paragraph to describe weird developments in 2022 even as he looked forward to 2023:

“The strangeness of 2022 was exemplified by the extravagant investment of time, brain cells and media passion in fretting about Twitter.  This medium, which humanity progressed without for 10 millennia, suddenly seemed to some worrywarts as vital as oxygen and proteins, and as perishable as the planet.  Progressives, constantly hungering for cataclysms (“Democracy is dying!” “Earth is boiling!”), worried that an end of politically motivated, government-influenced curating of content on Twitter, which is a 16-year-old adolescent, might doom this 246-year-old nation. Only 23 per cent of Americans, disproportionately progressives, use Twitter, and 25 per cent of the 23 per cent generate 97 per cent of the tweets.”

So, let’s forget about Twitter even as we watch Elon Musk lose more reputation, not to mention money.

The recent issue of Atlantic Magazine contained a story on the prospects for 2023.  It was written by Tom Nichols and here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“Throughout 2022, I’ve worried a lot.  I’ve had plenty of smaller gripes — that is my nature as a professional curmudgeon — but mostly, I’ve been concerned about world war, the rule of law, and the collapse of democracy.

“But here at the end of the year, I am optimistic, which is a surprise even to me.

“Before we head off into 2023, let’s think about why the past year wasn’t as bad as we might think, and why the coming year might even be better.”

Nichols opined that the “single most important story of the year” was the resilience of democracy.

“Two great events (or, more accurately, non-events) reassured me as part of that heartening narrative:  The Russians failed to win a war in Europe, and anti-democratic candidates failed to rebound in America.

“These were not small things, and indeed, I sometimes worry that Americans underestimate just how close to disaster we all came in 2022.  I am not prone to World War II metaphors, but I was moved enough by the mid-term elections to refer to them as ‘democracy’s Dunkirk.’ 

“In 2022, the West chose to help Ukraine defend itself, and the voters chose to protect democracy.  In fact, the American system is now engaged in a certain amount of healing, even if it doesn’t feel that way all the time.

“Election deniers, led by Kari Lake in Arizona, are regularly being told by the judicial system to go pound sand.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is, so far, a shambolic and pitiful mess.

“Congress, with something that these days looks like a smidge of bi-partisanship, has sent a bill with the Electoral Count Reform Act to President Joe Biden’s desk, adding some insurance against any further attempts at electoral-vote chicanery.”

Meanwhile, Nichols reported, there have consequences for coup plotters, seditionists, and other criminals, including multi-year prison sentences.

Here are a few other positive signs:

• Musk proved to us that billions of dollars cannot buy everything, and especially not competence or common sense. Tesla stock, the source of so much of Musk’s fortune, has lost more than $800 billion — that’s billion, with a B — in value, most of it vanishing after Musk’s decision to detonate his reputation.
• Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, meanwhile, finally dumped her affiliation as a Democrat, a move that was almost certainly prompted less by ideology than by her realization that she is deeply unpopular among Democrats and was likely to lose a primary in her own party.  Plus, in terms of organization in Congress, she is still likely to caucus with Democrats, if they let her in the front door.
• The collective national shrug at Trump’s entry into the GOP presidential race tends to confirm that 2022 was a bad year for narcissism.

So, back to the question. Will 2023 be better or worse than 2022?  My answer – maybe – rests on a basic perception.  All of us – me included – have a tendency to look ahead and find reasons to be pessimistic.  That includes our focus on media analysts who often focus on the negative. 

But, instead, we should look ahead, not just with optimism and not just with pessimism, but with realism.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Originally, I was going to write about new golf rules for 2023, but then a couple friends of mine suggested that “new reasonable” golf rules for the masses, not PGA or LPGA pro players, also was worth a look.

So, this blog will cover both.

First, the official new rules.

The name of the official making a pronouncement on golf rule changes for 2023 will ring bells for many Oregonians.

He is Craig Winter, now the United States Golf Association’s (USGA) senior director of rules and amateur status.

Why the memory?

Before Winter headed off to the East Coast to join the USGA, he was the director of junior golf for the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) and I got to know him when he had that job, which he did very well.

To me, he now gets credit for his expanding role within the USGA.

Here is the background on the rule changes:

“Every four years, the USGA and the R&A, the two organizations that maintain the Rules of Golf, make updates and modifications to the code that establishes how the game is officially played.

“Sometimes the rule changes are significant and at other times, they are clarifications.

“Last Monday, with the announcement of rule changes that will take effect starting January 1, 2023, the USGA and the R&A’s biggest focus is on sustainability and inclusion.

“After the 2019 updates to the Rules of Golf were announced, the USGA and the R&A printed two million copies of the rule book.  No more.

“The USGA and the R&A have announced that they will not be making printed copies of the Rules of Golf, forgoing the use of a half billion pieces of paper and saving the organizations significant costs.   It also eliminates the costs associated with shipping and distributing the books.

“Going forward, they hope golfers will use the free Official Rules of Golf mobile app on their smartphones.

“’We feel really good about the digital means that we have created to access the rules,’ said Craig Winter, the USGA’s senior director of rules and amateur status. ‘Going forward, we’re not going to be relying on the rules book being in every bag. Everybody has a smartphone, and they can download the free app.

“’We’re continuing to move forward and modernize, as we did in 2019, and it connects us to the golfer better.  The mobile app is real-time, digital and we can keep them updated.’”

Further, the USGA reports that, a year after the first U.S. Adaptive Open was held at Pinehurst, the USGA and R&A are moving the Modified Rules for Players With Disabilities into the Rules of Golf.

Some of my friends will rue the day printed rule books are not published.  After all, they could say, not everyone who plays and wonders about rules, will have a phone app at the ready.

Winters reports that four specific rule changes have been announced:

Club damaged during round

Starting January 1, golfers will be allowed to replace a club that is broken during a round, provided the club was not damaged or broken due to abuse.

Back-on-the-line relief procedure

Currently, after hitting into a penalty area, golfers have three options.  They can drop a ball where they played their last shot and hit another, adding a one-shot penalty.  They can also choose to drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball crossed the hazard (but not closer to the hole), play another shot, and add a one-stroke penalty.  Golfers can also create a line between the hole and where the ball crossed the hazard, then extend that line away from the hole using those two reference points as far as they like and drop a ball in a relief area (defined as being one club-length in any direction from the line that is not closer to the hole).

Starting in January, instead of dropping in a relief area, golfers will have to drop their ball in back-of-the-line relief on the line, then play the ball wherever it comes to rest, as long as it remains within one club-length of the spot where the ball hit the ground.

Ball moved by natural forces

Call this the Rickie Fowler rule.  At the 2019 Waste Management Phoenix Open, Fowler hit a chip shot onto a rain-soaked 11th green.  The ball rolled across the green, down a slope and into a pond.  Fowler found his point of relief on the slope that was not closer to the hole, dropped twice and each time the ball rolled back, into the penalty area (pond).  At that point, he was allowed to place the ball where his second dropped ball on the hillside, which he did, adding a one-shot penalty before walking back up to the green to survey his next shot.  While Fowler was on the green, his ball rolled back into the penalty area, forcing him to repeat the process and add another one-shot penalty for his second ball going into the penalty area.

Starting in 2023, a ball that is moved by natural forces must be replaced if it moves to another area of the course or comes to rest out of bounds after being dropped, placed, or replaced.

Handicap usage in stroke play

Now, players are responsible for making sure their handicap index at the start of a tournament round is accurate, which puts the onus on golfers to stay aware of handicap revisions and updates.  Failing to provide an accurate handicap can result in penalties, but starting January 1, the responsibilities for accurately tracking and providing player handicap information will fall to tournament committees instead of players.

I also found time to look at what my friends suggested — “reasonable” golf rules based on a story in Golf Digest.  I suppose there could be various definitions of the term “reasonable, but here are those rules:

·      Play out-of-bounds as a lateral hazard

·      Move your ball out of a footprint

·      Play winter rules when applicable

·      Move your ball off a root

·      Treat yourself to a mulligan

·      Adjust handicaps mid-round

·      Drop on other side of a forced carry

·      Move your ball out of a fairway divot

·      Use the “leaf rule”

·       Don’t putt everything out [For the record, some of the women who play where I play in Salem, Oregon, would blanch at this “reasonable” rule.]

·      Play ready golf, even on the tee

·      Don’t penalize yourself if your ball moves by accident when you remove debris

·      Pick up when you max out on a hole

Good ideas for us regular golfers.

But, with this, enough on golf for one day.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Originally, I was going to write about new golf rules for 2023, but then a couple friends of mine suggested that “new reasonable” golf rules for the masses, not PGA or LPGA pro players, also was worth a look.

So, this blog will cover both.

First, the official new rules.

The name of the official making a pronouncement on golf rule changes for 2023 will ring bells for many Oregonians.

He is Craig Winter, now the United States Golf Association’s (USGA) senior director of rules and amateur status.

Why the memory?

Before Winter headed off to the East Coast to join the USGA, he was the director of junior golf for the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) and I got to know him when he had that job, which he did very well.

To me, he now gets credit for his expanding role within the USGA.

Here is the background on the rule changes:

“Every four years, the USGA and the R&A, the two organizations that maintain the Rules of Golf, make updates and modifications to the code that establishes how the game is officially played.

“Sometimes the rule changes are significant and at other times, they are clarifications.

“Last Monday, with the announcement of rule changes that will take effect starting January 1, 2023, the USGA and the R&A’s biggest focus is on sustainability and inclusion.

“After the 2019 updates to the Rules of Golf were announced, the USGA and the R&A printed two million copies of the rule book.  No more.

“The USGA and the R&A have announced that they will not be making printed copies of the Rules of Golf, forgoing the use of a half billion pieces of paper and saving the organizations significant costs.   It also eliminates the costs associated with shipping and distributing the books.

“Going forward, they hope golfers will use the free Official Rules of Golf mobile app on their smartphones.

“’We feel really good about the digital means that we have created to access the rules,’ said Craig Winter, the USGA’s senior director of rules and amateur status. ‘Going forward, we’re not going to be relying on the rules book being in every bag. Everybody has a smartphone, and they can download the free app.

“’We’re continuing to move forward and modernize, as we did in 2019, and it connects us to the golfer better.  The mobile app is real-time, digital and we can keep them updated.’”

Further, the USGA reports that, a year after the first U.S. Adaptive Open was held at Pinehurst, the USGA and R&A are moving the Modified Rules for Players With Disabilities into the Rules of Golf.

Some of my friends will rue the day printed rule books are not published.  After all, they could say, not everyone who plays and wonders about rules, will have a phone app at the ready.

Winters reports that four specific rule changes have been announced:

Club damaged during round

Starting January 1, golfers will be allowed to replace a club that is broken during a round, provided the club was not damaged or broken due to abuse.

Back-on-the-line relief procedure

Currently, after hitting into a penalty area, golfers have three options.  They can drop a ball where they played their last shot and hit another, adding a one-shot penalty.  They can also choose to drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball crossed the hazard (but not closer to the hole), play another shot, and add a one-stroke penalty.  Golfers can also create a line between the hole and where the ball crossed the hazard, then extend that line away from the hole using those two reference points as far as they like and drop a ball in a relief area (defined as being one club-length in any direction from the line that is not closer to the hole).

Starting in January, instead of dropping in a relief area, golfers will have to drop their ball in back-of-the-line relief on the line, then play the ball wherever it comes to rest, as long as it remains within one club-length of the spot where the ball hit the ground.

Ball moved by natural forces

Call this the Rickie Fowler rule.  At the 2019 Waste Management Phoenix Open, Fowler hit a chip shot onto a rain-soaked 11th green.  The ball rolled across the green, down a slope and into a pond.  Fowler found his point of relief on the slope that was not closer to the hole, dropped twice and each time the ball rolled back, into the penalty area (pond).  At that point, he was allowed to place the ball where his second dropped ball on the hillside, which he did, adding a one-shot penalty before walking back up to the green to survey his next shot.  While Fowler was on the green, his ball rolled back into the penalty area, forcing him to repeat the process and add another one-shot penalty for his second ball going into the penalty area.

Starting in 2023, a ball that is moved by natural forces must be replaced if it moves to another area of the course or comes to rest out of bounds after being dropped, placed, or replaced.

Handicap usage in stroke play

Now, players are responsible for making sure their handicap index at the start of a tournament round is accurate, which puts the onus on golfers to stay aware of handicap revisions and updates.  Failing to provide an accurate handicap can result in penalties, but starting January 1, the responsibilities for accurately tracking and providing player handicap information will fall to tournament committees instead of players.

I also found time to look at what my friends suggested — “reasonable” golf rules based on a story in Golf Digest.  I suppose there could be various definitions of the term “reasonable, but here are those rules:

·      Play out-of-bounds as a lateral hazard

·      Move your ball out of a footprint

·      Play winter rules when applicable

·      Move your ball off a root

·      Treat yourself to a mulligan

·      Adjust handicaps mid-round

·      Drop on other side of a forced carry

·      Move your ball out of a fairway divot

·      Use the “leaf rule”

·       Don’t putt everything out [For the record, some of the women who play where I play in Salem, Oregon, would blanch at this “reasonable” rule.]

·      Play ready golf, even on the tee

·      Don’t penalize yourself if your ball moves by accident when you remove debris

·      Pick up when you max out on a hole

Good ideas for us regular golfers.

But, with this, enough on golf for one day.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The Oregon Legislature is about to start its 82^nd session.  So what?

Well, for me as a retired lobbyist, the start of any legislative session was a time for this emotion:  Foreboding.

I worried that legislators, concerned about their own issues, would ignore what my firm’s clients had to say about various proposals, including those that would affect them directly.

Was it worth it to worry?  Probably not.

Because, with colleagues in my firm, CFM Strategic Communications (now called CFM Advocates), I found ways to represent client interests, with, I add with some modesty, effectiveness.

When I was a lobbyist, Oregon’s Constitution called for biennial legislative sessions – a regular session in the odd-numbered year. 

That changed in 2010 when voters approved annual sessions, a change I opposed, but one that passed anyway as legislators sought, they said, to put the Legislature on more even footing with the Executive Branch.

Whatever.

Here are a few issues as the Legislature anticipates the start of the session on January 17:

• Back in the building:  Committee hearings, which are open to public participation, will be in person for the first time since 2020, when much of the body’s work moved on-line in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, a remote option also will remain.

Because of ongoing construction, the public will only be able to enter through the main doors on State Street, across from Willamette University.

That will allow access to Hearing Rooms A-F on the first floor, and the legislative offices in the Capitol wings.  There will be limited access to the House and Senate third-floor galleries on a first-come, first-served basis.

The renovations are scheduled to be done by January 2025, in time for the start of the legislative session that year.

• New leadership:  For the first time in 20 years, the Oregon Senate will have a new president.

Senator Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, will take over the position from Senator Peter Courtney, who has held the job since 2003.  Courtney, D-Salem, is Oregon’s longest-serving legislator, with 38 years as an elected official. He was known, some say, for his emphasis on bi-partisanship. 

Wagner is the current Senate majority leader.

Already, Republicans have said they are not pleased with Wagner’s selection.

“Senator Wagner has shown he is untrustworthy, deeply partisan, and doesn’t have the necessary skills to run the Senate in a bi-partisan fashion. There are no votes in the Senate Republican caucus for Senator Wagner,” Senator Tim Knopp, the Senate’s Republican leader, said in a statement.

Surprising to me that comments are so negative even before the session convenes.

In the House, current speaker Dan Rayfield was re-elected to the position.  He is relatively new, having taken over the job earlier this year after Tina Kotek resigned to focus on her successful campaign for governor.

In the minority party, Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson of Prineville was re-elected House Republican leader; and Knopp of Bend was re-elected Senate Republican leader.

• New governor:  Oregon will have a new governor for the first time since 2015, when Kate Brown was sworn into office.  Brown took over the last two years of Governor John Kitzhaber’s term after Kitzhaber stepped down during an ethics investigation.

The top job remains under Democrat control, as it has since 1987, the last year of Republican Vic Atiyeh’s eight years in office.  [I had the privilege of working for Atiyeh, a class act.  It was a highlight of my time in state government.]

Governor-Elect Kotek has said she won’t be a copy of Brown, one of the most unpopular governors in the nation.  She has said she will work to gain the trust of those who didn’t vote for her by welcoming all perspectives to her administration.

• Supermajorities lost:  Democrats held on to their majorities in both the House and Senate in November.  But they lost both supermajorities.

Oregon requires a three-fifths vote in each chamber, or a supermajority, to pass bills that raise taxes.  That means Democrats now need at least one Republican to vote with them to pass new taxes.

• Harder to walk out:  Voters overwhelmingly approved Ballot Measure 113 in November, making it harder for the minority party to block bills it doesn’t like by leaving the Capitol.

Under Oregon’s quorum requirements, two-thirds of a chamber’s lawmakers must be present in order to do business.

The measure prevents lawmakers from running for re-election if they have 10 or more unexcused absences in a single legislative session. It also prevents those lawmakers from winning a seat in the opposite chamber.

Republicans walked out in 2019 and 2020 to kill Democrat proposals, including bills to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  In 2021, Republicans walked out to protest Brown’s COVID-19 restrictions.

Democrats have used the tactic, too.  In 2001, House Democrats walked out for five days to prevent Republicans from passing a re-districting plan.

It is possible to have two views of the “walkout tactic.”  On the con side, those who walk out were elected, if you will, to “walk in and stay in.”  On the pro side, sometimes those in the minority party who walk out figure that there is no other way to express their viewpoint if the majority party ignores them.

• Key dates:  December 21, 2022 was the deadline to file bills prior to the session.  Those bills can be taken up as soon as the Legislature convenes, putting them first in line for committee work.

On January 9, Kotek will take her oath of office.  New and returning members also will be sworn in, including those in districts with boundaries that were re-drawn before the 2022 election.

The session begins January 17, and, by statute, will last no more than 160 days, or roughly six months.

So, in all of this, I am very to be sitting in La Quinta, California, in retirement.  No worries here, except my golf score.

But, I add this.  A legislative session, with all its pros and cons, is a prime virtue of representative government.  For the moment at least, I will take a positive look at what the next five or six months will hold for all of us in Oregon.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

It used to be that one of the standard definitions of politics was that it was “the art of compromise.”

That’s the way governing occurs – through negotiation and compromise.

Not from the extreme right or the extreme left in any democracy, such as exists, sometimes a bit feebly, in the United States.

As I write about this “lost art,” an irony is that Members of Congress produced a compromise in the last few days.  And, President Joe Biden just signed the omnibus – read, “compromise” — piece of legislation that allocated $1.7 trillion – yes, trillion — to keep the government open, to provide more aid to Ukraine, to boost defense spending, and to do a bunch of other stuff.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “a lot of hard work, a lot of compromise.  But we funded the government with an aggressive investment in American families, American workers, American national defense.  It is one of the most significant appropriations packages we’ve done in a really long time.”

Many Republican senators disagreed, but, in a way, that’s the nature of compromise.  Agreement and disagreement.

Based on my 25 years as a state lobbyist, plus about 15 years as a state government manager, here are what I believe to be the major aspects of compromise:

• No one likes all aspects of what is produced.

• All sides have to get and to give something.  That’s the way it works.

• Those who produce compromise must look at the big picture, not just their own viewpoints.

Checking with Mr. Google, here is how the word compromise is defined:

“A compromise is a situation in which people accept something slightly different from what they really want, because of circumstances or because they are considering the wishes of other people.”

In Forbes Magazine, contributor David Davenport wrote this under the headline, “Congress and The Lost Art of Compromise:”

“It is not difficult to identify ‘lost arts’ — things we used to do, but do not do any longer — in Washington, DC:  Civility, bi-partisanship, courage, just to name a few.  But one lost art underlies the others and has led to the inability of Congress to carry out its most basic responsibilities — pass a budget or keep the government open.  The most fundamental lost art of all is the lost art of compromise.”

The fact is that Members of Congress are almost entirely focused on positioning themselves and their party for the next election.  That has become the enemy of compromise. 

The perennial election vs. the art of compromise.

Like most arts, it will not be easy to find compromise again – at least not as the new Congress emerges this year with Republicans in charge of the House and Democrats in charge of the Senate. 

At the most fundamental level, both voters and politicians alike will have to recover a commitment to governing, not just making statements. 

We need leaders who will say, as President Ronald Reagan said to House Speaker Tip O’Neill of the other political party:  “I will take half a loaf today,  but I will come back for the other half tomorrow.” 

Today, everyone wants the whole loaf or nothing — if I can’t get my way, take the highway. 

I, for one, plan to stop voting for candidates who are more committed to their re-election, their party, and their one-word litmus tests than they are to making government work. 

That’s one way to get to the real business of governing, compromise.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Before reading the Washington Post this morning, I had not heard of the word “nudge” to describe words.

The writer advised readers to pick a New Year’s “nudge” word instead of making resolutions.

Here is how the article started:

“While everyone else is making New Year’s resolutions, try something different.  Pick a personal nudge word instead.

“This annual word-of-the-year exercise can help you reflect on your values, intentions, and hopes for the new year.  Think of it as the anti-resolution resolution.

“Instead of setting a specific goal, choose a word that captures the mind-set you want to adopt in 2023 — a word that will nudge you toward positive change whenever you think of it.

“To better understand the word-of-the-year exercise, it helps to know what it is not.  It should not be a broad resolution (exercise more), a specific action (lose 20 pounds) or a goal (save more money).

“Instead, choose a single word that reflects how you want to live in 2023.”

The writer then offered some tips about how to select a “nudge” word, then gave some examples.

1. Write down the things that made you happy this year.  What felt good?  What do you get excited about?  What would it take to feel this way all the time?
2. Next, think about what parts of your life could be better.  What causes you stress?  Are you thriving at work or feeling bored?  Do you wake up excited about your day?  What’s happening in your relationships?
3. Finally, check in with your body.  How is your physical health?  How is your mental well-being?  How do you feel when you look in the mirror?

Here are the examples:

• Words of reflection: awareness, awe, breathe, pause, reset, gratitude, resilience, optimism, focus
• Words of change: reset, renew, nourish, energize, growth, recharge, evolve, bloom, adventure, travel
• Words of connection: relate, reconnect, experience, balance, engage, cherish, comfort, listen

What follows would normally be the lead for this blog post, but I wanted to set up the definition of “nudge” before revealing my own words.

I thought of several contenders:

• Realism
• Optimism
• Resilience

Then, I settled on two because I could not find a way to limit myself to one – and the two could be linked in terms of the emotions they contain:

Thankful:  I want to be thankful for all the blessings I have received – and I want to express thankfulness frequently to those who have helped me.  [This reflects one thing I learned from a mentor in Oregon state government many years ago.  He said he tried every day to express his appreciation to those who had helped him.  Good intentions and commitment.]

Cherish:  I want to cherish my loved ones, for I have many.  Think of the word means:  “Hold or treat as dear; feel love for; to cherish one’s native land.”

So, for me, I will nudge myself to be thankful and to cherish in the New Year, 2023.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

On this day, the last day of 2022, I engage in a ritual…writing resolutions for 2023.

The preamble to this blog notes two of my favorite subjects – golf and politics – so I thought, why not summarize New Year’s resolutions for both.

Here goes, though I also will limit myself to one resolution for each subject.

GOLF

• I wish leaders of the PGA Professional Golf Tour and LIV Golf would find a way to arrive at middle ground – middle ground for the good of the game.

This may mean that Greg Norman, the spokesman for LIV Golf – what else does he do besides speak — may have to exit stage left because he is nothing if not controversial as his ego intrudes into almost every conversation.  Negotiations likely will not go on with Norman at the helm for LIV.

Would PGA Tour CEO Jay Monahan have to go or could he change his notions to allow negotiations?  I believe the latter. 

One point not worth negotiating:  Should players who left the PGA Tour for LIV (or, is the word “defected”), be allowed to return?  I say “no.”  They left for the lure of money, so stay there.

Being open to middle ground would require me to let go of my disdain for the funding of LIV Golf, reliance on the tainted Saudi Defense Fund.  But, for the good of the game we love, I’ll stifle my disdain.

Plus, I hope any settlement, if there is one, would restore professional golf to being a “competitive” event in the spirit of real athletic pursuits instead of the “exhibition” nature of LIV.

So, I pine for negotiations.

POLITICS

• Speaking of pining, I pine for politicians of all stripes to find middle ground on pressing public policy issues.

This should be preceded, of course, by asking a hard question – is there a role for government in a particular issue and, if there is, how should a program be designed to achieve results.

Further, middle ground is often where the best solutions lie anyway.  Not the far left.  Not the far right.  In the middle.

This also would mean that politicians would have to stop campaigning for a new term in office after having just been elected.  Get about the business of governing, not campaigning.  The skills are different.

Two resolutions.  Both are worth pining for – and isn’t “pining” a good word?  I say “yes.”

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I wrote the other day about being dislocated on Alaska Airlines and how my wife and I managed to make the best of bad situation.

At least I wasn’t booked on Southwest Airlines!

Just think of how bad it would have been.  We’d still be sitting in an airport waiting for a new flight days off, even as we spent time trying to find our luggage.

Here is the way the Wall Street Journal opined on the issue as editorial writers worried that, in the aftermath of struggles like Southwest (or is it really the aftermath?), the federal government was working to take over the airlines:

“The scheduling meltdown at Southwest Airlines is one for the business record books, and the carrier will pay a price for months or years in damaged reputation.  

“The only worse result for seething passengers would be to put Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in charge.

“Don’t laugh.  Buttigieg’s department said Monday it will investigate Southwest’s ‘unacceptable rate of cancellations and delays.’   It will also ‘take action’ to hold the carrier ‘accountable,’ as if the airline isn’t eager enough to make things right.”

To put it simply, Southwest cancelled more than 5,000 flights and is still trying to find its planes and crews!

And this from the Washington Post:

“No flights, no rental cars, no Christmas, but luggage everywhere. Everywhere!  Everywhere but where we need it.

“Luggage lined up in Dallas terminals like dwarf soldiers in a nightmare reveille.  Rings of luggage encircling empty carousels in Chicago, in a kind of artistic commentary on capitalism and modern itinerancy.  (Medium: thermoplastic polymer on wheels.)”

At times like these, the Post added, “our physical luggage becomes our emotional baggage.”

Congress is also doing what it does best, which is described best by one of my favorite short sayings:  It is setting out “to shoot the wounded.”

Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell announced a probe, while Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is using the mess to complain as usual about airline consolidation.  She wants Buttigieg to block a merger between JetBlue and Spirit Airlines.

Though the Christmas week brought huge lists of flight cancellations, most airlines are recovering.

However, Southwest’s problems roll on, with the carrier cutting 60 per cent of its schedule earlier this week. One problem seems to be outdated technology that failed to match crews to planes, as Southwest’s “point-to-point” network stranded aircraft across the U.S.

Back to the Wall Street Journal editorial:

“But Democrats care less about stranded passengers than they do about gaining more federal control over the airline industry.  Carriers are already required to refund when flights are canceled or ‘significantly changed.’

“Buttigieg proposed a new rule in August that requires airlines to provide refunds if flights are delayed more than three hours, increase the number of connections, land at a different airport, or use a downgraded’ type of aircraft.  The rule also would force airlines that received federal pandemic aid to provide credits if a passenger says he or she can’t fly because of Covid.”

The fact is airlines have struggled this year, but the government has contributed to the problem.

Covid lockdowns cost airlines business for two years (though, I add, that there might have been no useful alternative).  The federal aid that kept airlines afloat came with a mandate not to lay off or furlough employees. This caused airlines to offer retirement and buyout packages to preserve cash, leading to a pilot and crew shortage.

Washington receded from airline management in the 1970s, and the ensuing competition opened air travel to the masses.  Not sure whether this will continue – or be allowed to continue.

Again, the Journal:

“Politicians love to kick an industry when it’s down, but passengers can take their market revenge on Southwest without political help that will make air travel worse and more expensive.”

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Do you know what the 14^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is?

Well, I didn’t either.

So, I read a piece in the Washington Post yesterday.

Here is the best summary:

Section 3 explicitly bars insurrectionists like Donald Trump from holding “any office, civil or military, under the United States” unless “two-thirds of each House” of Congress lifts the ban.

The Post article was written by Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and science at Yale University, and Gerard Magliocca, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law.

It posited that the House January 6 Committee should have focused on the 14^th amendment because of its virtues, say, in regard to the slim chances of a criminal indictment against Trump.

Here is how the professors’ article started:

“Apart from a relatively brief mention in its 800-page report, the January 6 Committee missed the Constitution’s preferred punishment for former high officials turned insurrectionists.  The committee tries to persuade Americans that criminal prosecution is the only adequate response to Donald Trump’s systematic efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

“Nearly forgotten debates over ratification of the 14th Amendment point to a better, less divisive approach.  Nowadays, the amendment is best known for the Section 1 guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws.’  At the time of the debates in 1868, however, Section 3 — barring insurrectionists from future elected offices — was the hot-button issue.

“Section 3 targeted Jefferson Davis, a former U.S. senator who was president of the rebellious Confederacy, along with other leaders of the attempted overthrow of the U.S. Constitution.  These men had ‘taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States’ before the Civil War, then betrayed their oath by joining in ‘insurrection’ or ‘rebellion’ during the conflict.

“Section 3 explicitly barred them from holding ‘any office, civil or military, under the United States’ unless ‘two-thirds of each House’ of Congress lifted the ban.”

Sounds good to me.

Surely better than trying to get Trump on criminal grounds, even if he deserves that result.

No doubt, as he always has, Trump will try to squirrel his way out of criminal liability.  Or, he will just delay the processes to the extent that they might even go away over time.

Think back to former president Gerald Ford who explained when pardoning his predecessor, Richard M. Nixon, who resigned amid scandal: “During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused.  And our people would again be polarized in their opinions.”

One piece of good news here is that a Member of Congress, Jamie B. Raskin from Maryland, already has proposed a legislative solution.  His proposal would grant special jurisdiction to a three-judge federal court in the District of Columbia to determine, within three months, whether Trump’s involvement in the assault on Capitol Hill amounted to an “insurrection.” The panel’s decision would receive automatic Supreme Court review.

American history is marked by moments of political evasion — as well as moments of genuine courage.  Congress, led by Republicans willing to break with their party’s extremists, should bring the January 6 tragedy to a close and enable Americans to set the nation on the road to a post-Trump future.

The 14th amendment is a solid way to achieve that result.