A POTENTIAL TO BREAK D.C. GRIDLOCK: FACT OR FICTION?

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

In the aftermath of the defeat of a Republican-sponsored health care reform bill in Congress, there essentially are two options for U.S. governance.

In this space, I wrote about one earlier this week – based on recent evidence, contending that it is possible the two-party system of democracy in this country cannot work. Democrats could not find middle ground when they were in charge in the Nation’s Capitol; perhaps they didn’t want middle ground, but only to advance their own agenda.

Republicans couldn’t find middle round in the recent health care saga and, again, may only want to express their majority.

But there an option other than giving up on our form of government. It is to find a way to govern from the center.

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) columnist William Galston proposed this approach in a piece this week in the WSJ. He posited that real bi-partisanship can only be achieved if both sides get together at the outset and work in the same room on pressing public policy problems.

This didn’t happen under former president Barack Obama, who came to Washington, D.C. talking a good line – that was one of his major skills, talking – but delivering one of the most one-sided administrations in recent history.

Most of us might be tempted to think that prospects for bi-partisanship would not be bright under President Donald Trump, who emerged through a markedly contentious Republican presidential campaign and appears to think he always knows best about any issue.

Still, Galston perseveres.

He writes: “Donald Trump wasn’t elected to perpetuate the ideologically driven gridlock of the past six years. But his decision to pursue a one-party approach on health care threatened to do just that. Now that this approach has failed, however, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to begin again with a more inclusive strategy, as many members of his own party are urging.

“Ohio’s Governor John Kasich declared the same day on CNN that ‘you cannot have major changes in major programs affecting things like health care without including Democrats from the very beginning. The Republicans tried to do it with just Republicans. It doesn’t work like that in our country. We are not a parliamentary system.’”

Galston reported that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a bit of a centrist himself, said “the president should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say ‘Let’s get a shot at doing this together, because it ain’t working doing it by ourselves.’ ”

Trump himself has said a few words lately about working with Democrats if only because it was the far right Republican Freedom Caucus that sabotaged the health care bill. The question now is whether the Trump administration will allow its entire agenda to be held hostage by a minority faction of Republicans who will accept nothing less than policy purity—as they define it.

This is the inevitable consequence of trying to legislate with the votes of only one party. There are signs that the White House is contemplating a course correction. “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News. “It’s time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board.”

Galston continues: “Real bipartisanship means getting the parties together around a table at the beginning (emphasis added) of the legislative process. Asking Democrats to sign on to bills that Republicans have already drafted won’t work; not enough of them will break ranks to change the dynamic.”

Further, in today’s polarized political climate, real bi-partisanship needs to make it impossible for the most extreme forces to veto potential agreements. This means building coalitions from the center out, beginning with the forces in both parties that do not reject the very legitimacy of compromise.

Is there a chance for a genuine bi-partisan approach to work – for a real effort to find the smart middle ground? Given all that has happened in recent years, it is easy to be negative, even cynical, about bi-partisan prospects.

That could mean the failure of America’s two-party democracy. So, I’ll join Galston in holding out hope that centrists – those interested in the smart middle ground – can find a way to gain momentum.

TWO-PARTY SYSTEM GRINDS TO ANOTHER HALT: CAN IT STILL WORK?

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

It’s always dangerous in politics to predict the future in the immediate aftermath of a specific result. Better, I suppose, to let the details settle at least for a few days.

But, discretion aside, my sense is that it is not an exaggeration to contend that America’s two-party system of democracy is in dire jeopardy.

When Democrats were in charge in Washington, D.C., they produced one-side only results, which failed, much of the time, to garner any Republican votes. When President Barack Obama came to town he suggested that he intended to run a different kind of government, one that worked from the middle. He didn’t. His signal domestic achievement, ObamaCare, was not an example of solid two-party democracy, no matter how much the Ds lauded their effort.

With Republicans in charge now, they also could not garner any votes from the other side, even as they watched their own supposed governing coalition dissolve in acrimony over what they called health care reform.

Republican leaders, including President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, were compromised by their own party, especially the so-called “House Freedom Caucus,” which wanted something that would never happen, full repeal of ObamaCare. But Democrats also played the role of opponents, and not always the loyal opposition.

Now, some of my friends suggest that Ryan should have involved Democrats in an effort to reform ObamaCare.  Perhaps, but there was no real chance for success there because, for one thing, Republican conservatives on the far right wanted only repeal.  Plus, Democrats were never going to tinker with ObamaCare with Republicans in charge.

Who knows what will happen as Congress and the Trump Administration turn next to something else such as overall tax reform, which some say should have been the first issue undertaken by the current Congress? Or, what about a deal to increase the debt limit and keep the federal government operating?  That was the issue that brought down former speaker John Boehner and it could have the same result for Speaker Ryan – if he lasts that long.

Here are a few perceptions relating to questions about the future of the two-party system:

• Neither Democrats nor Republicans can see their way clear to work with the other side. Developing middle ground solutions to pressing public policy problems is a lost art.

• When Democrats were in charge, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid conducted themselves with an elitist attitude, suggesting that they always knew what was best for the country. The new Majority Leader, Senator Chuck Senator Schumer, illustrates the same kind of hubris. [If there is good news here, it is that Reid is gone. His idea of process in the Senate was to do nothing.]

• For Republicans, House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell talk a better line than their Democrat counterparts. Ryan, in particular, comes across as articulate and smart, qualities that get left behind in a Congress that functions more on smear and opposition than on policy. McConnell wants to return the Senate to being a deliberative body, with perspectives from all sides welcome, a far cry from Reid’s closed-door style.

• Still, the prominent motive in D.C. appears to be that a slight by one party deserves a slight by the other party. Consider the current Supreme Court nomination process involving a clearly qualified nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Because Republicans wouldn’t consider President Barack Obama’s last nominee, Merrick Garland, in the lame duck Obama Administration, many Democrats now say they won’t consider voting for Gorsuch.

In a piece in the Wall Street Journal, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch wrote about this issue:

“What sort of civics lesson were the American people treated to last week? Judge Gorsuch’s performance was outstanding. Enduring more than 20 hours of questioning over two days, he displayed an impressive command of the law and an intellect befitting someone with his stellar credentials. He showed that he understands the proper role of a judge in our system: to apply, not make, the law. Throughout, his demeanor was serious, thoughtful and humble. These qualities have defined his judicial service for the past decade and will serve him well on the Supreme Court.

“In stark contrast was the astonishing treatment Judge Gorsuch received from many of my Democratic colleagues. Whatever their motivation—be it the outcome of President Obama’s lame-duck nomination during last year’s election, an unwillingness to accept the November results, or the desire for judges to push a liberal political agenda—they have apparently decided to wage a desperate, scorched-earth campaign to derail this nomination, no matter the damage they inflict along the way. We are now watching the confirmation process through the funhouse mirror.”

• Continuing fights of this sort don’t bode well for the ability of Congress and the president to get anything done. It’s always one-upmanship.

For these and other reasons, the prospects for workable two-party democracy seem to be disappearing fast. Time for third party? One that emphasizes policies from the middle, which is supposed to be the art of politics – compromise – in the first place.

Until now, it has been hard for a third party movement to gain any viable traction. If Congress and the president continue to illustrate that two-party democracy can’t work, a third party movement might gain more momentum.

THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES WORTH REMEMBERING IS OPEN AGAIN

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

As a reminder, I am the director of this department with clear and complete authority to manage it as I see fit. Therefore:

From Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal (written before the health care bill was pulled off the House agenda): “Less than three months into full control of government and the chance to reshape the American system for a generation, Republicans are doing something no one thought possible: They are reinventing the circular firing squad.

“Maybe in politics, genes really are destiny. Under pressure from a CBO ‘score,’ the genetic disposition of Republican politicians is to go wobbly. The disposition of movement conservatives is to get out the long knives and start carving up other conservatives.

“The result will be guaranteed political defeat for years if congressional Republicans choke at the chance to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

“The Beltway bubble has never looked so big or real as now, to wit: The Trump-Ryan-Price health-care reform bill is too tough on Medicaid. Or it isn’t tough enough. It will break the Trump entitlement bond with the middle class. We want the 2015 repeal-only bill. Let ObamaCare collapse. What’s the rush? We can do this reform some other time.

“If this bill fails, there is only one Plan B. It will be a single-payer system enacted after 2020 with votes from what’s left of the Republican party after—Donald Trump is right about this—they get wiped out in 2018 and lose the presidency two years later. After blowing it on ObamaCare, why would anyone vote for them again?”

From The Wall Street Journal on confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch in response to advocacy by Democrat leaders that Gorsuch should have to announce how would vote on key Supreme Court issues: “Mr. Leahy (Senator Pat Leahy) told nominee Ginsburg at the time that he ‘certainly’ did not want her ‘to have to lay out a test here in the abstract which might determine what your vote or your test would be in a case you have yet to see that may well come before the Supreme Court.’

“Further, at the 1967 hearings for Thurgood Marshall, then Senator Edward Kennedy called it a ‘sound legal precedent’ that ‘any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either before the court or very likely to appear before the court.’”

Now, Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer is saying he will vote no on Gorsuch because he is too conservative and also is saying the Ds will filibuster the nomination.

Senator Orrin Hatch on the D position on Gorsuch: “What sort of civics lesson were the American people treated to last week? Judge Gorsuch’s performance was outstanding. Enduring more than 20 hours of questioning over two days, he displayed an impressive command of the law and an intellect befitting someone with his stellar credentials.

“He showed that he understands the proper role of a judge in our system: to apply, not make, the law. Throughout, his demeanor was serious, thoughtful and humble. These qualities have defined his judicial service for the past decade and will serve him well on the Supreme Court.

“In stark contrast was the astonishing treatment Judge Gorsuch received from many of my Democratic colleagues. Whatever their motivation—be it the outcome of President Obama’s lame-duck nomination during last year’s election, an unwillingness to accept the November results, or the desire for judges to push a liberal political agenda—they have apparently decided to wage a desperate, scorched-earth campaign to derail this nomination, no matter the damage they inflict along the way. We are now watching the confirmation process through the funhouse mirror.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers (who wrote this before the health care bill was pulled from the process): “The biggest gamble in the House health-care bill is whether it includes enough reform to arrest the current death spiral in the individual insurance market. No one knows for sure, but critics are overlooking important provisions that will help people who are now exposed to ObamaCare’s rapidly rising premiums.

“Notably, the bill includes a new 10-year $100 billion ‘stability fund’ that allows states to start to repair their individual insurance markets. Before ObamaCare, it wasn’t inevitable that costs would increase by 25% on average this year, or that nearly a third of U.S. counties would become single-insurer monopolies. With better policy choices, states can make coverage cheaper and more attractive for consumers and coax insurers back into the market, and the stability fund is a powerful tool.”

From hill.com: “Jim Dyer, who served for 13 years as the Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, says it will be tough to find tens of billions of dollars for President Trump’s proposed defense increase from other programs.

“If Mr. Mulvaney tries to get $54 billion out of nondefense cuts, he will have to tread softly,” Dyer said of popular programs on the nondefense side of the budget. “There are veterans’ benefits  — you don’t want to touch that. There’s funding for the wall and homeland security. There’s money for cancer research that everyone supports.”

“He predicted that Congress will largely ignore Trump’s budget and do what it wants.”

From the New York Times: “Once again, Mr. Trump’s agenda was subsumed by problems of his own making, his message undercut by a seemingly endless stream of controversy he cannot seem to stop himself from feeding.

“The health care measure appears on track for a House vote this week, and the president, who planned a weekend of relaxation at Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach, Fla., club, is likely to receive a large measure of the credit. But it has also become clear that Mr. Trump, an agitator incapable of responding proportionately to any slight, appears hell-bent on squandering his honeymoon.”

From Ari Fleisher, press secretary for George W. Bush: “It’s a pattern with him — he sometimes counterpunches so hard he hits himself.”

Fleischer’s comment is a good way to end this post because it describes very well a president who jeopardizes his own ends.

ON HEALTH CARE, NOW WHERE? NOWHERE!

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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

The headline answers the question: Nowhere.

President Donald Trump and Republican leaders illustrated that they cannot govern in their first big chance to do so in the majority and the main reason is one they will have to own. Republican conservatives, the inaptly named the “House Freedom Caucus,” compromised their own leaders and voted no – or at least pledged to vote no when, in the end, there was no chance to do so on the House floor because the bill was pulled.

President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan will be called losers for this result – and, in many ways, they probably deserve the moniker.

Trump, putting his personally acclaimed deal-making ability on the line, couldn’t produce one. He tried to blame Democrats for the result, but that won’t hold up under scrutiny. It was Republicans – very conservative ones – who produced the result.

As for Ryan, I have been a fan of his for years and I remain so.

He could be – and will be – criticized for bringing up health care first rather than, say, tax reform. But I also felt he had no choice, given the campaign rhetoric about getting rid of the government entitlement that came to be known as ObamaCare.

He did exactly what good leaders do, which is to PROPOSE a solution then allow it to be debated by all sides as the bill moved through a total of four House committees on the way to the House floor.

He’ll be criticized for not involving Democrats in the early stages so they could have a hand in devising a health care reform bill. That charge doesn’t hold up, in my view, because Democrats were never going to participate in an effort to reform the signal achievement of the Obama era. They voted en masse for ObamaCare and they were not going to participate in its demise, despite all of the facts that the plan was not working.

The fact that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) produced a report saying 24 million Americans would lose coverage contributed a lot to the debacle. Many Republicans couldn’t stomach the report, but I also wish the CBO would have acknowledged that some of those who would “lose” government-provided coverage could buy insurance on their own. Plus, I also wish the CBO would analyze results of the ObamaCare’s own crater in the next few years.

[My own prescription for health care reform relies on a simple, but controversial, proposition. It is that the law should require citizens to purchase health insurance in much the same way as laws requires drivers to purchase automobile insurance. That way, for health care, we’d all be in the same pool. Of course, there would have to be additional provisions related to covering low income citizens, but a purchase requirement is the base from which everything else proceeds.]

So, now Ryan moves on to other issues, though, if I were him, I would be attempted to do what John Boehner before him did – not just move on, but move out to a position in the private sector that would take advantage of his substantial intellect and credentials. It appears those will be of little use in the House where leadership is foiled mostly because follower-ship doesn’t exist.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that “this failure also reveals the unfortunate skills gap between Democrats and modern Republicans in practical legislative politics. Democrats have their Bernie Sanders faction, which claimed to ‘oppose’ ObamaCare in 2009-10 for lacking a government-run public insurance option. But the far left voted for the bill anyway because they concluded, rightly, that a new entitlement was a great leap toward single-payer national health care.”

It always is difficult to get rid of a government program that dispenses money to citizens. In reform, someone will inevitably lose and those who lose will rally those on the left to keep the government entitlement.

Critics assailed the House leadership bill as “ObamaCare Lite,” but the result of their rule-or-ruin strategy will now be the ObamaCare status quo, and Representatives Mark Meadows (North Carolina), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Louie Gohmert (Texas) and the rest of the Freedom Caucus will now have to own all of ObamaCare’s problems.

The Wall Street Journal – properly in my view, said “the grand prize for cynicism goes to Senator Rand Paul, who campaigned against the bill while offering an alternative that did not have a prayer of passing. ‘I applaud House conservatives,’ Paul said, ‘for keeping their word to the American people and standing up against ObamaCare Lite. I look forward to passing full repeal of ObamaCare in the very near future.’”

I doubt that there will be any such repeal in this Congress, and probably not in any other Congress under Republican leadership, which, of course, will be jeopardy in the mid-term elections of 2018.

So, the bottom line question is now what – for health care and for almost anything else. My sense is that Congress is in such disarray that nothing will happen in a bi-partisan way. It didn’t when Democrats were in charge and it is not now happening with Republicans in the driver’s seat.

Makes one wonder if the American form of two-party democracy works any more. [More on that in my next post.]

MAKING SAUSAGE OR LAW: THE OLD COMPARISON HOLDS IN CURRENT HEALTH CARE DEBATE

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Legislating is tough business.

So is developing compromise.

That is what is happening in Washington, D.C as House Republicans work to pass a replacement for the flawed ObamaCare health care program passed only by former President Barack Obama and his Democrat colleagues several years ago.

The fact that Republican leaders postponed a House floor vote for a day was just one more indication of legislating in action. Early today, a compromise bill emerged from the House Budget Committee and is scheduled to make it to the House floor later today, Friday.

ObamaCare, by contrast, was imposed from above and many of those Democrats who voted for it had not even read its 2,000 pages.

Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal described the situation very well, as follows:

“With a hat-tip to Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Republican health-care bill have been greatly, vastly, even bigly exaggerated. What we are witnessing isn’t a legislative demise, but the rebirth of a long-lost Washington concept: politics.

“From the moment Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled his ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, the media have declared it a doomed project. The newspapers have run out of synonyms for division, disunity, discord, conflict, struggle, mess. Since the only thing the media enjoy more than bashing Republicans is helping Republicans bash each other, the cable stations have offered a nonstop loop of a handful of GOP naysayers and grandstanders (cue Rand Paul) who wish the bill ill.

“Perhaps the talking heads can be excused for their dim outlook. The Obama administration marked one of the more dysfunctional and destructive periods in Washington—eight years of threats, executive rule, non-communication and opposition politics. So it is undoubtedly confusing for some people suddenly to watch an honest-to-goodness legislative process, with all its negotiating, horse-trading and consensus-building.

“Under prior management, Nancy Pelosi did her thing, Harry Reid did his thing, President Obama did his thing, and the three tried not to talk if at all possible. The Obama legislative affairs team couldn’t have found Capitol Hill with a map.”

If you have ever seen sausage made – I have – it is not a pretty sight. Neither is legislating. House Speaker Paul Ryan and colleagues, buttressed by President Trump, are trying to appease both conservatives (the House Freedom Caucus) without losing moderate/centrist votes.

In the background, of course, is the prospect of a Senate vote later which, in fact, could make some House Republicans wary of casting a tough vote only to see it come to naught in the Senate.

Sausage and law, an opt comparison.

What’s at stake is the credibility of Republican leaders in Congress as they work to express a majority in both chambers that they have wanted for several years.

If they succeed, they’ll have better prospects for remaining elements of their conservative agenda, including tax reform.

If they fail, there are only two solutions – leave a government-imposed system, ObamaCare, in place (which has been threatened by President Trump) or, at the insistence of liberal Democrats, impose a government-run, government-financed single payer system that, frankly, none of us can afford.

We are already a few steps down that pathway with a system of government health care benefits under ObamaCare. Getting rid of government largesse is a tough business because someone always loses.

As I write this, the outcome is not clear. But, the Wall Street Journal conveyed the seriousness very well: “House passage would provide the double dividend that any useful reform pays: Credit for promises kept, and then credit from voters who benefit from solutions to problems they confront personally, such as being rescued from ObamaCare’s cycle of rising premiums and declining choices.”

Good luck to House Republican leaders. It appears they’ll need a little luck, beyond hard work, to prevail.

REMOVING BIGOTRY AT MUIRFIELD GOLF CLUB IN SCOTLAND

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

The Honourable Company of Edinburgh golfers finally got it right: It decided to admit women to Muirfield Golf Club in Scotland.

About time!

It took a crusty group of men far too long to make this decision, one that some will say occurred only so as to keep Muirfield in the rotation of golf clubs able to host the British Open – pardon me, “The Open.”

But, whatever the reason, it was time for one of the oldest golf courses in the home of golf, Scotland, to recognize 21^st century reality.

Muirfield, formed in 1744, was one of the last clubs to host a major golf event to dig their heels in on membership. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews opened its membership to women in 2014. Royal St. George’s, another British Open site, followed suit a year later. Last year, Royal Troon ended its male-only policy, a few weeks before hosting the British Open.

Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters, deserves a dose of credit for offering membership to women in 2012, however belatedly, and, in doing so, daring the rest of the heel diggers to fall in line behind it.

Here’s the way the New York Times characterized the Muirfield decision:

“Tuesday’s victory was perhaps more about pragmatism than principles. Just over 80 per cent of the men of the Honourable Company of Edinburgh, which runs Muirfield, determined that it is better to have to share membership privileges with the occasional woman than to be excluded from hosting a British Open.

“Of the 621 members who voted, 498 were in favor of admitting women. Last May, 616 members cast ballots, with fewer than 400, or 64 per cent, voting for the resolution.

“Any inclination to warmly welcome the gentlemen of Muirfield into the 21st century is tempered by the fact that 123 members — even confronted with a boycott of their storied course by the Royal and Ancient, the organizer of the British Open — stubbornly thumbed their noses at what passes for progress in the civilized world by voting against admitting women.

“In their defense, the pace of change must be dizzying for those stuck in the era of knee-length trousers, ruffled cravats and tweed jackets. For more than a century, Muirfield had been able to welcome the world to its storied course while keeping women out, except as guests and visitors. Sixteen times, most recently in 2013, Muirfield managed to keep its discriminatory membership policy and host one of golf’s most prestigious championships, too.”

Speaking of the phrase “except as guests and visitors,” my family’s experience adds to this lore. Specifically, it is the experience of my wife and daughter-in-law.

About 15 years ago, we were at Muirfield to watch son Eric play in the British Mid-Am, a golf tournament for which he qualified by playing well in the United States Golf Association Mid-Am in America. [“Mid-Am” refers to the fact that players are at least 25 years of age, which means that college players or those just out of college are not eligible to play.]

Here is the way my wife, Nancy, described the experience of being “allowed” to be at Muirfield, along with Eric’s wife, Holly:

“The British Mid-Am was not expecting a lot of spectators, but as this was a national tournament, the Muirfield members had to provide access to the clubhouse for any women who might show up. Holly and I were there to watch Eric, and we were directed to a minimal powder room and were told that we could also use the dining room for lunch.

“The only reason the clubhouse even had a ladies’ room in this men-only club was to provide a necessary spot for the once-a-year access for wives at the annual Christmas party.

“After following the first blustery, rainy round, we looked forward to warming up over lunch. We were immediately aware that this was no ordinary club cafe. There were long tables filled with distinguished-looking mostly older men in sports coats and ties, and every one of them turned and silently watched two bedraggled females walk into their domain.

“We enjoyed the amazing buffet put out for members every day and the men we talked to at our table were completely polite to us, though seemingly a bit dazed that we were there (and in golf togs!).

“I do like to think that Holly and I may have had a tiny part in integrating the club for women!”

No doubt they did!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAKING SAUSAGE OR MAKING LAW: THE OLD IDIOM HOLDS IN CURRENT HEALTH CARE DEBATE

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Legislating is tough business.

So is developing compromise.

That is what is happening in Washington, D.C this week as House Republicans work to pass a replacement for the flawed ObamaCare health care program passed only by former President Barack Obama and his Democrat colleagues several years ago.

ObamaCare was imposed from above and many of those Democrats who voted for it had not even read its 2,000 pages.

Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal described the situation very well, as follows:

“With a hat-tip to Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Republican health-care bill have been greatly, vastly, even bigly exaggerated. What we are witnessing isn’t a legislative demise, but the rebirth of a long-lost Washington concept: politics.

“From the moment Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled his ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, the media have declared it a doomed project. The newspapers have run out of synonyms for division, disunity, discord, conflict, struggle, mess. Since the only thing the media enjoy more than bashing Republicans is helping Republicans bash each other, the cable stations have offered a nonstop loop of a handful of GOP naysayers and grandstanders (cue Rand Paul) who wish the bill ill.

“Perhaps the talking heads can be excused for their dim outlook. The Obama administration marked one of the more dysfunctional and destructive periods in Washington—eight years of threats, executive rule, non-communication and opposition politics. So it is undoubtedly confusing for some people suddenly to watch an honest-to-goodness legislative process, with all its negotiating, horse-trading and consensus-building.

“Under prior management, Nancy Pelosi did her thing, Harry Reid did his thing, President Obama did his thing, and the three tried not to talk if at all possible. The Obama legislative affairs team couldn’t have found Capitol Hill with a map.”

If you have ever seen sausage made – I have – it is not a pretty sight. Neither is legislating.

What’s at stake this time around is the credibility of Republican leaders in Congress as they work to express a majority in both chambers that they have wanted for several years.

If they succeed, they’ll have better prospects for remaining elements of their conservative agenda, including tax reform.

If they fail, the only solution is a government-run, government-financed single payer system that, frankly, none of us can afford. We are already a few steps down that pathway with a system of government health care benefits under ObamaCare. Getting rid of government largesse is a tough business because someone always loses.

As I write this, the outcome is not clear. But, the Wall Street Journal conveyed the seriousness very well: “House passage would provide the double dividend that any useful reform pays: Credit for promises kept, and then credit from voters who benefit from solutions to problems they confront personally, such as being rescued from ObamaCare’s cycle of rising premiums and declining choices.”

COLUMNIST HENNINGER IS BRILLIANT: ONE REASON IS THAT HE AGREES WITH ME

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 think Daniel Henninger, author of the Wonderland column in the Wall Street Journal, is brilliant.

Yeah, okay, one of the reasons is that he agrees with me. Or, more accurately I agree with him.

Here is the way he described what’s at stake as Congress debates the GOP-proposed repeal and replacement of ObamaCare:

“If this bill fails, there is only one Plan B. It will be a single-payer system enacted after 2020 with votes from what’s left of the Republican party after—Donald Trump is right about this—they get wiped out in 2018 and lose the presidency two years later. After blowing it on ObamaCare, why would anyone vote for them again?”

So, it appears we are heading for an even bigger government program, one that appeases those on the left who want more government, but one we can hardly afford as the federal deficit runs ever higher.

Republicans, in my view, deserve credit for having the courage to propose, not just repeal, but also to replace ObamaCare, which has become a new national entitlement. It often is difficult to get rid of government largesse; those who have it want to keep what they have.

While Republicans proposed a new health care act, as they said they would do, there are not holding onto it with an iron fist. They have said they are considering amendments to make it more palatable as it has been considered or is being considered by four committees in the House.

The bill is heading to the House Rules Committee, where leadership will make amendments to appease conservatives and moderates unhappy with the current legislation.

And the president himself, who was not involved in drafting the Republican plan, is reported to be meeting with groups of Members of Congress to ask them for support in return for his commitment to make changes, including giving states more control over Medicaid.

The rub, of course, is that, as the president negotiates with Republicans in the House, he may make passage more difficult in the Senate.

 

 

HEALTH CARE: HOLD THE LINE OR NEGOTIATE MIDDLE GROUND

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

It may be stating the obvious, but health care in Congress could go one of two ways: Up or down.

It would be good if there was a third option: Middle ground in a deal among Republicans, Democrats and the Trump Administration. Unlikely, you say. Yes. But I wish it was possible, so the result would be different than a “just Republican” result that would mimic another bad result, the “just Democrat” approval of the original ObamaCare.

Two of my favorite columnists in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger and Peggy Noonan, dealt with the subject in different ways this week.

Henninger contended that Republicans should double down and make good on their campaign promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare, despite growing opposition. If they don’t prevail, he wrote, their majority will be short-lived.

Noonan, in a different voice, called on President Donald Trump to do something many of us feel he would not be able to do, which is to negotiate with Democrats so we are not left with another ObamaCare debacle.

Here, in a bit of an extended way, is how each columnist characterized their contentions:

Henninger: “The American people didn’t endure and survive the 2016 presidential election for this. The public that voted Donald Trump into the White House will drive Republicans into a deserved wilderness if they go back on the only promise anyone can remember them making the past six years.

“The day the Republicans clutch on this reform, there will be six-column headlines across the Washington Post and the New York Times: ‘Trump Abandons Promises on Health Care.’

“It will be a fast ride downhill from there. That is because the health-care reform bill is linked inextricably to the politics of tax reform, the second pillar of the Trump legislative agenda.

“If this bill fails, there is only one Plan B. It will be a single-payer system enacted after 2020 with votes from what’s left of the Republican party after — Donald Trump is right about this — they get wiped out in 2018 and lose the presidency two years later. After blowing it on ObamaCare, why would anyone vote for them again?”

Noonan: “Why aren’t we talking about growing and building and knocking down barriers? Why aren’t we talking about jobs and a boom and reforming regulation and taxes so people can build and invest?

“Is cutting the absolute No. 1 priority right now? In a country that is, in Pope Francis’ famous characterization of the modern world, ‘a field hospital after battle’?, is that what the Republican party wants to lead with? Why isn’t the priority unleashing, getting past limits, pushing toward dynamism and expansion?

“All these old arguments—we have to have them now? Why? Because it’s important for a party to prove it doesn’t know what time it is?

“How about a little prudence and patience? The priorities should be jobs, growth, social cohesion and an atmosphere, in Washington, of constructiveness. We don’t need any new culture wars — we’ve got enough, thanks! Is the worst thing that could happen in the world right now that a kid from New Jersey can come into Manhattan and see an off-Broadway show seeded with a $30,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts? No, that’s not the worst thing that could happen!

“The worst that could happen is that Congress is so exhausted as an institution, everyone’s ideologies so played out, that they’re all just playing a part, going through the motions, mindlessly replicating past battles in hope of some new reward.

“The president should confound expectations, pivot, and turn to the Democrats for a bi-partisan deal (on health care).

“Here is the tradition. If you are Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 and you want to create Social Security—an act that affects Americans very personally—you get the other party in on it. You need them co-owning it, invested in it. You want the American people saying, ‘Congress did this,’ not ‘the Democrats did this,’ because if they say the latter the reform will always divide. FDR got 81 Republicans to vote for it in the House, and 284 Democrats. The same with Medicare in 1965: Lyndon Johnson did all he could to get the GOP on board. A majority of House Republicans supported it.

“Barack Obama, full of himself after his 2008 victory and surrounded by triumphalist House Democrats, ignored the teaching of history and passed ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. The Democrats would get all the credit. In time they got all the blame. Republicans had no incentive to bail them out.

“But the health-care system, as Ohio Gov. John Kasich has observed, is crucial. The Democrats must be in on the process to achieve ‘true and lasting reform.’”

A third option – compromise? Most of us would bet that it won’t happen. But, I believe it should so, here in America, we can prove that democracy works again for the benefit of all of us.

WORK HARD TO AVOID BECOMING PART OF A “MEDIA PROCESS” STORY

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

All of the to’ing and fro’ing by the White House over Donald Trump’s claim, issued via twitter, that the Obama Administration wiretapped his residence underlined a reality for me based on my 40 years of relating to the media.

It is this: If your responsibility is to deal with the media, work hard to avoid becoming part of what I call “media process” story. The facts of the story should dictate the coverage, not how you deal with or respond to reporters and editors.

Hard to do in the Trump Administration, I suppose, because there is so much disagreement over the facts, or, in some cases, “the alternative facts.” Thus, those who speak for the Administration often end up being part of the story.

Consider Sean Spicer’s conduct over the last few days. Against an intentional set of media questions, he had to stand on his head, perhaps for good reason, as he tried to answer for Trump’s claims that Obama had wiretapped his residence.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it when describing his answers to probing questions:

“…Mr. Spicer’s remarks on Monday were the first from the press secretary suggesting the president hadn’t meant his allegation as necessarily literal—and therefore wasn’t maintaining that he, and his own phone lines at Trump Tower in Manhattan, were targeted directly by the Obama administration.

“’His tweets do speak for themselves,’” Mr. Spicer said at one point, then noting again that Mr. Trump had placed quotation marks around the words ‘wires tapped’ and ‘wire tapping’ in two of his tweets.”

Spicer danced and, as he did, his conduct became part of the story.

The same with Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway who, in a media interview, tried to contend that it was possible microwave signals from TV had been used to tap Trump.

In both of these cases, you could contend that Spicer and Conway were caught in a web created by their boss – and you would be right. But, their approach to the media also put their own conduct as spokespersons front and center.

Without trying to put myself on any kind of pedestal, in all of my media relations work for a state university, for an Oregon Congressman, for a state agency and for an Oregon governor, I worked hard to avoid giving reporters a chance to focus on my actions as a spokesman. I wanted the facts to dominate the story, not my tactics.

To provide one example, when I served as spokesman for the management side of Oregon state government during each of two state employee strikes, I tried to strike – pardon the play on words — a reasonable posture with reporters and editors.

I didn’t want my conduct to be part of the story. To be sure, I was quoted on management views, but I avoided arguing with reporters and editors. That way the focus would be on issues separating management and union members, not on methods of providing information to the media and answering their questions.

I knew the spokesman on the other side, Bentley Gilbert, who is now retired as I am. He conducted himself with theskill and discipline. We were apart on issues; we were not apart on how we dealt the media. Even when we were interviewed together, which happened on a few occasions, I respected his even-handed, honest approach. And his approach did not spark media coverage of his methods and tactics.

I suspect it will be difficult on a continuing basis for Trump staff like Spicer and Conway to avoid becoming part of the story. For one thing, that appears to be their style. For another, the Trump Administration focuses on generating controversy with the “opposition party,” the media.

For me, though, facts and perspectives ought to prevail, not tactics for dealing with the media.