IF BIDEN WINS, WHAT WOULD THE COUNTRY BE LIKE?

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 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 of 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.

Consider this headline.

What would America be like if Joe Biden wins and Donald Trump loses?  Not perfect, of course, because no presidential administration ever is.  But, if only because of the qualities of Biden, we could return to a time when character mattered in the Oval Office.

With Trump, solid character is off the table.  So, we are left debating his egomania and his incessant tweets.  I say stop.

In a column in the Washington Post this morning, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt asked and answered the question.

“For the past three-plus years, the country has lived — and suffered — in Donald Trump’s America,” he wrote.

“With President Joe Biden, America would be starkly different.  To begin with, it would not be Joe Biden’s America, which in itself says something significant about the difference.

“The nation would return to a time when most Americans were not forced daily to contemplate the president’s latest provocation, government officials would be picked based on competence and commitment to service, not their capability to play the sycophant, and the president would judge his success based on legislative accomplishments rather than TV ratings.

“This is not to say that Biden would be a mere throwback to the years of President Barack Obama, or before, but that he would muster democratic norms and values to face an uncertain and dangerous future.”

Just think of it for a moment.  Without Trump and the Republicans who simply abet him, we could focus on crafting policies that make America better at home and around the world.

NOW ABOUT THOSE POLLS

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19TH 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 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 of 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. A PEW Research Center report asked this probing question the other day:   What can we trust 2020 election polls to tell us?   Well, the answer is we are not sure.  At least I am not sure. After what happened in 2016 — polls predicted Hillary Clinton would win, but Donald Trump produced what could be called an upset – it is hard to know whether polls can be accurate. As Election Day draws closer this year, PEW says, if we are trusting polls to predict the future, then our trust is misplaced. The best answer about polls, PEW contends, is to expect them to reveal our priorities and values – and why we vote the way we do – not the who-wins prediction. “Good pre-election polls try to get inside people’s heads.  They attempt to understand the reasoning behind Americans’ values, beliefs and concerns.  They explore how voters are reacting to major events such as the pandemic and economic downturn; how they feel about the candidates and policies; and which factors are motivating them to vote for a particular candidate, or whether to vote at all.” And, beyond that, I also wonder whether who-wins type of polls can be relied upon in these days of high tension and interpersonal argument.  I don’t know that people will respond accurately on controversial issues or candidates. Over my career in politics, I have witnessed the work of crummy pollsters – those who produce polls to confirm pre-poll perspectives.  We used to call them “push polls,” as in pushing respondents to a prearranged point of view. Push pollsters give a bad name to the solid operators. All of this came to mind as I read a story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) story under this headline:

The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Will Win

Robert Cahaly foresaw the outcome in 2016. Will ‘social acceptability bias’ deliver another surprise?

In the WSJ interview, Cahaly defined “social acceptability” this way:

“The mainstream media and other authority figures have openly and aggressively contended that Trump is a white supremacist, a would-be dictator, a cretinous buffoon and an inveterate liar.  In such an environment, poll respondents who sympathize with the president, or who believe his administration has on balance done more good than harm, may be forgiven for not saying so to a stranger over the phone.

“Do people lie to pollsters?  ‘Yes,’ Cahaly says, ‘but they’re not necessarily doing anything wrong.  If a grandmother says, ‘This is my grandson, isn’t he a handsome boy?’ and you can see he’s anything but handsome—he’s sickly and weird-looking—you don’t say, ‘No, he’s sickly and weird-looking.’  You just say, ‘He sure is.’ ”

Let me underline a point I made earlier.  If you agree to a phone call from a pollster (by the way, I refuse all such calls), you might not respond accurately for fear that, in a controversial issue such as abortion, same sex marriage, capital punishment or the like, your response may end up being used against you, especially in a society marked by pervasive social media.

Or, you may just not want to admit support for a controversial issue or candidate.  

So, it’s tough for polling these days to be accurate because accuracy still depends on the honesty of respondents.

And that means that, in the current presidential race, I am trying to ignore all polls and just wait for the outcome next Tuesday or whenever it occurs.

A STUDY IN STARK CONTRASTS: JAMES A. BAKER VS. MARK MEADOWS

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 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 of 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 headline on this blog may not make much sense unless readers, like me, are political junkies.

Here is how the headline came to my mind.

I just finished reading a great political book, The Man Who Ran Washington:  The Life and Times of James A. Baker, III.  It was the story of a man who served multiple presidents, including as chief of staff, and managed three Cabinet departments.  It was when Baker led the Department of State that he oversaw the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Middle East peace (which, like all such deals in the Middle East, did not last very long).

By contrast, the current chief of staff for President Donald Trump is Mark Meadows, a former Member of Congress, who has made a negative name for himself by saying the Trump Administration (there’s that word again, administration, which cannot be used about Trump) has given up on efforts to control the pandemic, even as it is a major blot on Trump’s record, one that could cost him re-election.

Meadows also has failed, intentionally, to convey to the American people the severity of Covid-19 infections among the president’s and the vice president’s staff at the same time as he provided misleading information on Trump’s own infection.

Thus, the contrast:

James A. Baker is one of most competent chiefs of staff in history and Mark Meadows is one of the worst.

Now, reasonable observers could argue that it is impossible to serve as chief of staff for Trump who won’t let anyone do the job, much less abide any staff member who does not display unthinking and continual loyalty to the top dog. 

For Meadows, media reports say he spends little in his office in the White House and has little, if any, focus on managing the processes by which information flows to the president.  Of course, even if Meadows performed this normal chief-of-staff-gatekeeper role, the chances are Trump wouldn’t listen, a contention buttressed by the fact he has cycled through four chiefs of staff in the last three-plus years.

This issue – the role and performance of chiefs of staff – matters to me for at least two reasons:

• First, Baker’s performance underlined what should be true of politics in general these days, which, as it was put in the book, “politics should be more about pragmatism than purity.”
• Second, I have worked under several chiefs of staff in Oregon who served governors here, so have seen first-hand how the competent ones perform under intense pressure.

Operating from my post in the cheap seats in Salem, Oregon, I list these five qualifications for a chief of staff.

1.  Demonstrate the ability to bring disparate interests together to solve public policy challenges.
2. Demonstrate the capacity to provide leadership, which can be known when it is seen, not when it has described in words in advance of its existence.
3. Demonstrate the ability to distinguish between what you and what you don’t know – and, for the latter ,rely on other members of the management team.
4. Demonstrate that you have the wherewithal, first, to challenge the boss when you think he may be wrong, and, second, implement, with skill and dispatch, any decision once it is final.
5. Demonstrate the critical judgment to know that government is supposed to work FOR the people, not for those in office.

At the national level, Baker demonstrated all of these and more.  Meadows does not.

And, in Oregon, one of the best was Gerry Thompson who served as chief of staff for the last Republican governor here, Victor Atiyeh.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I worked for Atiyeh, too. 

Does my bias show?  If it does, good.

LISTING TRUMP’S MAJOR PANDEMIC FAILURES

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 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 of 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 occasion, I choose to devote my blog post to reprint a newspaper column that I consider to be especially relevant, not to mention the fact that the writer uses words better than I would use them.

This is such an occasion.

Therefore, below is a reprint of a column by Michael Gerson that appeared in the Washington Post this morning.

In cogent words, Gerson describes President Donald Trump’s “most profound failures in the pandemic.”

As election day approaches – and the word “day” may not mean as much as it once did given so much voting my mail – it is worth pondering Trump’s mistakes, which have been legion.  Could he have stopped Covic-19 in its tracks?  No.  Could he have done more to contain it?  Yes.

So, to help with pondering Trump’s failures, read on.

*********

On Election Day 2020, it is probable than more than 60,000 Americans will be newly infected with covid-19, in a pandemic that has taken at least a quarter-million lives and threatens many more.

This is the main context for the presidential election. Interviews with senior officials, who asked to maintain anonymity because they fear retaliation, offer the picture of a largely functional government betrayed by a deeply dysfunctional leader.

Taken together, their testimony outlines four failures of judgment and leadership that have worsened the trajectory of the pandemic in the United States.

···

The first is a sin of omission — the failure to act when clear duties arise.

The federal government’s response to covid-19 began poorly in early February. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced a test for the virus that was contaminated and initially useless. As errors go, this was a serious one. No country can shape an adequate pandemic response without some idea of the location and extent of infections.

Yet errors in the initial response to a complex national challenge are to be expected. Successful leadership adapts quickly and shifts course. But when testing faltered, the Trump administration did not rise to the moment, even though there were solutions at hand — employing the effective World Health Organization test, or allowing labs to develop and use their own. Weeks passed as the health bureaucracy churned.

The cost of this testing disaster was immediate and high. In February, plans were suggested for random testing in emergency rooms around the country. “It never happened,” recalls a senior administration official. “Testing was not available. We would have learned weeks earlier that this was out there in the country. We lost at least a month.”

It is doubtful that this information would have allowed for a comprehensive test-and-trace response on the model of South Korea. But getting testing right more quickly might have helped curb the spread early, saving many lives in the process. The White House had the ultimate responsibility to make the system work. But it didn’t.

···

The second error was a sin of commission — the direct betrayal of a duty.

Even as events rushed forward, the Trump administration actively and deceptively played down the extent and seriousness of the crisis. As the danger became undeniable, the president and others in his administration doggedly denied it. “It’s going to disappear,” said President Trump. “We have it so well under control.”

There was never a proper sense of emergency at the White House — an attitude that transferred downward across the administration. Some clearly viewed covid-19 as a political problem that could be managed by public relations — as though renaming it the “Wuhan virus” could shift responsibility away from the president. Instead of disease control, they focused on damage control.

This made little sense as a long-term political strategy. The reality of mounting deaths would inevitably intrude. But there was something else at work here — an attribute of Trump himself. He scorns the bearers of unfavorable tidings. He banishes uncomfortable truths. With Trump, a senior administration official told me, there is “punishment for delivering bad news.”

This creates a bubble of happy talk around the president. “It is sort of like being in an alternate reality,” another administration official said. “The numbers would tell us that 15 cities were on fire, and two were turning things around. The entire focus was on the two doing good. No focus on the 15 doing poorly.”

How do you successfully manage an unfolding crisis if you refuse to hear bad news? You don’t.

···

The third major error was the Trump administration’s early decision to shift burdens and blame to the states.

By April, an administration strategy had solidified: hand off responsibility for pandemic response to the governors and cease to “own the problem.” With the death toll around 58,000, the administration hoped to declare victory and be done with it. “We have met the moment, and we have prevailed,” Trump said on May 11.

The official handoff involved creating federal guidelines for the safe and careful reopening of states that had closed to fight the pandemic. Trump agreed to the CDC guidelines in an Oval Office meeting on April 15, and they were announced broadly the next day. “If they had been adopted universally,” a senior administration figure told me, “it would have saved tens of thousands of lives.”

The unofficial handoff came on April 17, when Trump tweeted calls to “LIBERATE” Michigan, Virginia and Minnesota. It was, according to one administration official, “the most profound shock of all.” Trump had cast his lot with the shutdown’s populist critics, some of them armed. He began criticizing governors for lacking courage and speed in the process of reopening. And he shelved a second round of more detailed guidance from the CDC.

Blaming the states gave Trump a convenient excuse not to have his own comprehensive, national plan. And sabotaging the reopening standards had the rebounding influence of politicizing public health itself. In a highly polarized environment, reckless behavior became viewed as patriotism. In a crisis requiring behavioral change on a vast scale — wearing masks, social distancing — Trump consistently treated behavioral change as a sign of weakness. “It was increasingly destructive,” a senior administration official said. “It led to thousands of deaths.”

···

The fourth mistake was the administration’s undermining of expertise.

The tendency is most obvious in Trump’s elevation of quack cures. He suggested hydroxychloroquine would be “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.” It has become one of the greatest jokes, with real damage done in the wasted time and resources that could have gone to productive medical purposes.

A greater danger in the midst of the pandemic has been Trump’s irrational trust in outliers. Neither Peter Navarro nor Scott Atlas is an expert in public health or infectious disease. But both gained influence with the president by massaging a portion of his preexisting beliefs — Navarro on rapid reopening, Atlas on herd immunity. These anti-experts have provided bad advice and sought to sabotage rival sources of information. “Not only does the president want to surround himself with yes-men,” a senior administration official told me, “he wants to use yes-men to discredit the reputations of truth tellers.”

Attempting to argue with Trump on scientific matters is a difficult enterprise. He doesn’t distinguish between anecdote and evidence, and political need outweighs actual science. “He only sees through the lens of his political fortunes,” said one official. “Nothing else counts.”

···

The past several months have not been without successes in the fight against covid-19. Because of improvements in treatment, fewer who get the disease die. Progress on vaccines has come more quickly than any precedent. These achievements may eventually mitigate some of the failures of the first eight months.

But today we start from a shockingly high level of new infections. Coming are holiday travel and increasing time spent indoors in winter. On Election Day 2020, the United States will be in another precarious place. Once again, Trump is insisting we are turning the corner on covid-19. One administration official responds: “We are turning the corner — into a dark alley.”

The covid-19 crisis does not have a single cause, but it has revealed Trump as he is. His leadership skills are nonexistent. He is not talented, effective or even particularly cunning. He is simply outmatched, and eager to shift the blame. In the past eight months, the United States has led the world in deaths from covid-19. Trump has led the world in the production of alibis. His failures of wisdom and judgment have imposed massive, tragic costs on our country. And justice will be served if they cost him reelection.

THE MAN WHO RAN WASHINGTON FAVORED PRAGMATISM OVER PURITY

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 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 of 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 headline on this blog is the main title of a book I just finished, the full title of which is:

The Man Who Ran Washington:  The Life and Times of James Baker, III.

So, this is my quick book report:  Read the book.  It is a good reflection on the work of an individual, James Baker, who brought what would be today, for me, a welcome relief from the intemporal tedium and almost innate dishonesty of Washington, D.C.

In a phrase, the welcome relief is this:  Value pragmatism over purity, as James Baker did over more than 40 years in public life.

Baker was able to avoid the unattainable pursuit of perfection in government in order to find the middle ground – the smart middle on issues ranging from ending the Cold War, to recovering from a recession, to brokering Middle East peace. 

The authors of book are two journalists, Peter Baker (no relation to James Baker), who writes for the New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a staff writer for the New Yorker.  They are husband and wife.

The book ought to be required for anyone aspiring for a career in government or politics.

For one thing, it is not some kind of glassy-eyed look at Baker.  It includes detailed looks at his successes and his failures.  He had both, though it should be said he produced more of the former than the latter.  For another, the two authors go far behind the scenes to produce even the notes Baker wrote as a reminder to himself about what to say when he squared off with other country leaders or the media. 

The inclusion of such notes lends a dose of credibility to the accounts.

Today, at 90 years of age, Baker is no longer in public life.  But his list of accomplishments is both long and arduous.

• He served two presidents – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush– as chief of staff in the White House.

• He served as secretary of three Cabinet departments – Commerce, Treasury and State.

• In the latter, the State Department, he brokered the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union as he conducted shuttle diplomacy across Europe.

• He represented another Bush president, George Bush, in negotiations up to the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve Bush’s victory over Al Gore.

• And, in a last statesmanlike act, he sat by the elder Bush’s beside as he passed on.  Baker and Bush had been great and lasting friends dating back to the time when they played as tennis partners when both lived n Houston.  So, it was fitting for Baker to be the one to wish his friend a permanent goodbye.

In today’s tarnished approach to politics, there always are winners and losers as contenders sneer each other.  It is not likely again for a person like Baker to emerge, though we all can wish for it to occur.

Here are two passages from the book, which illustrate Baker’s credentials and abilities:

• “Delegate hunter, campaign manager, White House chief of staff, Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State, James Addison Baker III played a leading role in some of the most critical junctures in modern American history.  For a quarter of a century, every Republican president relied on Baker to manage his campaign, the White House, his world.  Baker brought them to power or helped them stay there through the momentous events that followed.  He was Washington’s indispensable man.

• Through it all, he was the archetype of a style of American politics and governance that today seems lost, an approach focused on compromise over confrontation, deal-making over disagreement, and pragmatism over purity.  He negotiated with Democrats at home and Soviets abroad, assembled the coalition that won the Gulf War, and brokered the reunification of Germany in the heart of Europe.  He was the “gold standard” among White House chiefs of staff, as virtually everyone put it, and went on to become the most consequential Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger.  In short, he was the un-Trump.

Even if there are no more Bakers, it is time for national leaders to find the wherewithal to choose pragmatism over purity – for the good of the country.

“SPIN, HYPERBOLE AND DECEPTION” — THUS HEADLINED A PIECE IN THE WASHINGTON POST

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 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 of 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 am writing this blog to amplify on a question asked by a friend of mine the other day as we had only a brief talk about national politics.

He said he was unaware of any lies that had been told by Donald Trump.  Really?

At the time, I let the comment go, though a first response could have been to refer to the Washington Post Fact-Checking column, which, to date, has tallied more than 20,000 lies told by Trump over the last three-plus years.

20,000?  Yes, 20,000!

Rather than cite that source, I chose to let the comment pass because, to do otherwise, would only have sparked an argument I didn’t want to have.

But, last weekend, the Washington Post ran a story under this headline:

Spin, hyperbole and deception: How Trump claimed credit for an Obama veterans’ achievement

The story outlines a standard Trump approach, which is to claim false credit for an achievement for so long and so repeatedly that many come to believe it is true.  In this case, Trump claimed credit for an achievement that, rightfully, belongs to Barack Obama.

So, to me, the story stands as a good response to my friend, though I do not intend to make it directly.

Here is how the article began:

“President Trump has told mistruths about the 2014 VA Choice Act more than 156 times, seeking to deny the contributions of rivals, including Barack Obama and John McCain.

“The first time Trump claimed false credit for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act — which President Barack Obama signed into law in 2014 — was on June 6, 2018.  That day, as Trump signed the Mission Act, a modest update to the bi-partisan VA Choice legislation, he seemed to conflate the two.

“In the coming weeks, Trump began systematically erasing from the legislation’s history not just Obama but also the late senator John McCain, who, not only co-sponsored the VA Choice Act, but also was so instrumental in passing the Mission Act that he is one of three senators for whom the act is officially named.”

The story goes on to note that “nearly four years into the presidency, Trump has made more than 22,000 false or misleading claims — falsehoods that go well beyond mere political exaggeration.  He has obfuscated, he has deceived, and he has spun. Trump’s mendacity has become a hallmark of his presidency.

“The president’s handling of the VA Choice legislation offers a crystalline window into the anatomy of a Trump lie:  The initial false claim, the subsequent embellishment and gilding, the incessant repetition and the clear evidence that he knows the truth, but chooses to keep telling the falsehood — all enabled by aides either unwilling or unable to rein him in.”

For me, this example illustrates a bottom-line truth about Trump.  He is a narcissist – everything revolves around him, so, as he lies, his obvious motive is to bring credit to himself.

Time for a change?  Yes.

WHEN HISTORIANS WRITE ABOUT THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY…

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 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 of 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.

…who knows what they’ll say?

But, I submit, one perspective will be clear.  Trump’s intentional policy was to rip immigrants’ children from their families – call it what is, “kidnapping.”  He tries to defend the gallingly inhumane approach in the name of immigrant reform, but, as usual, his claims don’t square with the truth.

I have two hopes.

• One is that Trump’s intentional kidnapping will resonate with voters, so much so that it will provide yet another reason not to give Trump four more years in office.
• The second is that historians will render Trump’s intentional kidnapping policy as what it is — a violation of everything America stands for, especially in the way of supporting family units.

Phillip Bump wrote about all of this in the Washington Post for publication on the day after the final presidential debate.  Here are excerpts of what he wrote:

“Near the top of the list of ways that President Trump’s administration has deviated from established practice was his endorsement of a zero-tolerance policy for families seeking to migrate to the United States.

“During the second year of his term in office, families hoping to escape violence in Central America or seeking more economic opportunity began arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border in record numbers to seek asylum in the United States.

“Immigrant advocates began to notice that children were systematically being separated from their parents and detained in different facilities.

“The administration at first denied that there had been any formally instituted policy change leading to the separations, but it soon became apparent that these separations were meant to evoke precisely the terror that inevitably resulted.

“The goal was a simple, callous one:  Making parents choose between seeking asylum or keeping their kids.  Make parents fleeing violence and poverty risk losing their children.”

Consider this new news:  Advocates have been unable to locate the parents of 545 children who were separated at the border.

Yes, that’s right.  An estimated 545 children cannot find their parents and their parents cannot find them.

If I was Trump – perish that ridiculous thought – I would be losing sleep over this unthinkable tragedy.  But wait – I would never have instituted such a heinous policy in the first place.

Also a day after the presidential debate, Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post included this paragraph in her analysis:

“…Trump’s utter lack of decency came when he insisted conditions for kids at the border were just swell.  ‘They are so well taken care of. They are in facilities that were so clean,’ Trump said.” 

To which, Biden emotionally hit back, “Separating children from their parents violates every value we hold as a nation.”

Historians will have difficulty rating the Trump presidency.  There have been so many departures from truth and conventional norms of political action.  Most of them be hard-pressed to know how to describe the tenure of the worst president in American history.

But, I believe Trump’s “kidnapping” will stand at the top of the list of issues for he should be held responsible by history.

America deserves better.

THE CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP: THREE EXAMPLES

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 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 of 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.

What came in my e-mail in-box yesterday were three summaries of the case against Donald Trump as he tells America he needs another four years in office – or, more accurately, that we need him because “he is so great.”

Actually, there were more than three summaries, but I’ll limit the list to these three:

• Representatives of the Lincoln Project, a group of past Republican political operatives who say it is time for Trump to go for the good of the country.
• Washington Post political columnist Dana Milbank who, in a bid to mimic Trump tweets, produced a column in all capital letters and, with exclamation points, summarizing Trump’s record of offenses.
• Washington Post columnist George Will who projected that Trump will leave office as he entered three-plus years ago – whining.

Here are selected excerpts from each:

FROM THE LINCOLN PROJECT

“In two weeks, the most consequential election of our generation will come, and your time for choosing will arrive. As Republicans, will you stand with President Trump, or will you stand with, and stand up for, America? Will you protect democracy or protect a single person and his family?

“We’re not merely talking about your vote.

“We’re talking about what comes next.

“Never before in U.S. history has an incumbent president refused in advance to accept the outcome of an election. In the days ahead, your party may call upon you to support efforts by a White House that refuses to transfer power after a loss at the polls. The weapons won’t be tanks but thousands of lawyers backed by an attorney general who works for the president, not the people.”

FROM DANA MILBANK:

What Trump has done as if he was commenting, via tweet, on his own performance (and Milbank’s list is much longer than what I reprint here):

LETTING 220,000 AMERICANS DIE FROM COVID-19 — WORST IN WORLD. VOTE!

LOSING 3.9 MILLION JOBS IN FOUR YEARS — WORST IN RECORDED HISTORY. VOTE!

KNOWING PANDEMIC WAS “DEADLY STUFF” ON FEB. 7 BUT OPTING TO “PLAY IT DOWN” AND MISLEAD AMERICANS. VOTE!

PROPOSING BLEACH AS A COVID CURE, MOCKING MASK-WEARING, HOSTING WHITE HOUSE SUPERSPREADER EVENT AND SUGGESTING ANTHONY FAUCI IS AN “IDIOT.” VOTE!

FROM GEORGE WILL:

“As the Donald Trump parenthesis in the republic’s history closes, he is opening the sluices on his reservoir of invectives and self-pity. A practitioner of crybaby conservatism — no one, he thinks, has suffered so much since Job lost his camels and acquired boils  — and ever a weakling, Trump will end his presidency as he began it: whining.

“His first day cloaked in presidential dignity he spent disputing photographic proof that his inauguration crowd was substantially smaller than his immediate predecessor’s.  Trump’s day of complaining continued at the CIA headquarters, at the wall commemorating those who died serving the agency. His presidency that began with a wallow in self-pity probably will end in ignominy when he slinks away pouting, trailing clouds of recriminations, without a trace of John McCain’s graciousness on election night 2008.”

So, to include, I say do what I already have done, which is to end the Trump lunacy.

MORE REASONS WHY A VOTE FOR TRUMP MAKES NO SENSE

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 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 of 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.

This morning, my blog consists of running intact a column by one of the best writers going, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George Bush whose columns now appear in the Washington Post.

In this one, he makes an excellent case against President Donald Trump as the president grovels and pants for a second term that we should not grant him.  Too much is at stake to allow a so-called reality TV show host to occupy the Oval Office.

And, by the way, on that point, I already have cast my ballot — and it was not hard to vote for Joe Biden.

Enough said, except for Gerson below.

**********

One of the most symbolic moments of campaign 2020 was when the apparatus of the Republican Party strained and groaned to produce a platform reading, “RESOLVED, That the Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention.”

It was, in its own content-free, witless way, an assertion of power. The party that had produced a platform every four years since 1856 had become, well, anything President Trump wished at the moment. It was a declaration and recognition of personal rule.

After nearly four years, it is fair to ask: With the GOP as putty in Trump’s hand, what form has it taken? What are the large, organizing commitments of the GOP during the Trump captivity?

One would have to be voter suppression. What began, for some, as an effort to ensure ballot security has become a campaign to control the content of the electorate by limiting its size.

Not long ago, I would have regarded this as conspiracy thinking. At some point, however, a pattern becomes a plot. There have been Republican efforts to make voting more difficult in Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma. These have included: complicated absentee ballot processes, strict voter ID rules, obstacles for voters returning from prison, objections to the broad distribution of ballots and logistical obstacles to early voting. The Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, set the example of shamelessness by limiting vast counties to a single ballot drop box. The president has attempted to destroy trust in the whole electoral enterprise in preparation for legal challenges to mail-in votes.

Again and again, Republicans have used, or attempted to use, the power they gained from voters to undermine democracy. This has a political intention but (for some) it also has an ideological explanation. It is the logical electoral implication of nativism. If too much diversity is the cause of our national problems, it can be fought by restricting immigration or by restricting the democratic participation of minorities. In either case, these are actions motivated by Republican fears of being swamped by people they can’t relate to and voted into obsolescence. So the GOP seems to expend more energy and creativity on discouraging minority voting than it does on doing minority outreach.

The second characteristic of the new GOP is denial of a pandemic in the midst of a surging pandemic. Trump and many other Republicans think they can win only if American voters forget about more than 219,000 deaths from covid-19 and the utterly incompetent federal response to the crisis. It is hard to recall any American presidential campaign that depended so directly on the outbreak of mass amnesia.

Trump’s recent campaign visit to Wisconsin was remarkable for its brazenness. On a day Wisconsin saw its highest level of new infections during the pandemic, Trump told a crowd that had to be screened for coughs and fevers that the country was “rounding the corner” on covid-19 and that their state was insufficiently open. This is denial pressed to the point of lunacy. It is the elephant urging people to ignore the elephant in the room.

The third organizing commitment of the GOP under Trump is loyalty to his person. At the beginning of his term, there was a Republican attempt to understand the populism that elected Trump and draw its policy implications. That ended quickly. The president made clear that the only thing that really mattered about populism was its end product: himself.

Populist causes — such as discrediting the media and “owning the libs” — are instruments to protect Trump from attack and project his own power. His whole term has been the chaotic and brutish attempt to find the people who would take his whims as law. And elected Republicans (except the admirable Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah) have been ruled by the fear of Trump’s tweeted tantrums. As Trump seems headed toward electoral failure, a few Republicans are recovering their own voices. But it won’t be easy to escape this taint. Years of complicity with Trump’s assault on American institutions is less like a bad haircut than an infected tattoo.

Some would add a conservative judiciary to this list of GOP commitments, and there is a case to be made. But this is no longer advocated in the context of moral conservatism, as it was in the Reagan era. The goal now is to secure conservative judges from a morally anarchic administration. A cause has been reduced to a transaction.

What should we make of this GOP agenda: voter suppression, disease denial and a personality cult dedicated to a con man? It is the weakest appeal to the public of any modern presidential candidate. The Republican Party may win or lose. But it deserves to lose.

THE WISDOM OF DODGING QUESTIONS – SOMETIMES

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 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 of 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.

We used to call it “bridging.” 

As in, bridging to what you want to say in an interview despite the questions being asked.

All of this came up again as I watched Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett endure two full days of questioning last week by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On occasion, she “bridged” to the information she wanted to provide no matter the question.  Often, this involved Democrat inquisitors who tried to trap Barrett into committing to positions on such hot-button political issues as abortion, same-sex marriage and gun control.

She would have none of it and, after two days, emerged essentially unscathed, which will insure her confirmation in the next couple weeks.  Her bridge often went something like this:  I cannot render an opinion on an issue that stands to come before the Court where I would have to render a judgment based on the law, not politics.

Her likely confirmation will come before the presidential election, which irritates Senate Democrats who, if the situation were reversed, I contend but do not know, would do the same thing.  Exercise raw political power.

I thought of this in relation to the ways, during my career as a lobbyist, that I prepared for and helped clients get ready for tough interviews before a legislative committee, a TV camera, or a radio microphone.  In such cases for me, it always was important to make a list of the key points I wanted to make or that I advised my clients to make, then find a way myself or hoped my client would find a way to insert those points no matter the question that was asked by a legislator or a news reporter.

This worked for me, for example, when, I worked in executive positions for Oregon state government and represented the state in communications with the media, including interviews by newspaper, radio or TV reporters during a state employee strike. 

With such phrases as, “that’s a good question, but let me tell you what’s really at stake during the strike,” I often bridged from the question being asked to the answer I wanted to give on behalf of management. 

Not every time, mind you, because, if that was the case, I would come across as nothing more than a PR hack.

That can be the bad part about bridging.  If done repeatedly, it doesn’t work because it deflects any sense of honesty and candor, But, if used in balance and on occasion, it is a good strategy.

I was reminded of this when I read a column by David Von Drehle in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Here is part of what Von Drehle wrote:

“ Few political arts are more valuable than that of dodging questions. The wise leader understands that tomorrow is an enigma, next week a mystery and next month an unknowable country. Flexibility to react to new and changing circumstances is a priceless asset; it should not be squandered through excessive candor.  “If elected, will you . . . ” is almost always a trap, designed to pin the would-be decider to a fixed position.

“The non-answering of direct questions is a hot topic. Democrat senators spent much of the week grilling Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, but she zigged and zagged her way past the salvos. ​ Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden continued his dogged — though not at all graceful — dance around the question of whether he supports a plan to pack the high court.  Meanwhile, President Trump continued to avoid questions about his covid-19 tests or his tax returns as if they were bowls of quinoa and kale.”

American voters, Von Drehle wrote, are often willing to accept evasion as long as there’s a sense it serves some national purpose.

I agree.

But, as one person, let me add that I will often be one of those willing Americans to tolerate secrecy if it’s in what I believe to be the national interest.  Finally, my tolerance does not extent to Trump who has abused the oath of his office for more than three years now and, therefore, should not get another term.

Vote.