HELP WITH A HARD-TO-DEFINE TERM: “LINKS GOLF”

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.

If you are a golfer – full disclosure, I am – you no doubt have heard the phrase, “It’s a links golf course.”

But, the phrase is hard to define.  In part, this is because “links golf” is one of those “you know it when you see it” issues.

So, this morning I read my new on-line version of Links Magazine and the editors there performed a useful service.  They defined the term “links golf.”  This:

“The British Golf Museum defines a links course as ‘a stretch of land near the coast characterized by undulating terrain, often associated with dunes, infertile sandy soil, and indigenous grasses such as marram, sea lyme, and the fescues and bents which, when properly managed, produce the fine-textured, tight turf for which links are famed.’”

There you have it.  Now you know.  And perhaps even more than you want to know.

The magazine added that there are not many real links courses in America.  Most of the courses that meet the “links” definition are in Scotland and Ireland, or elsewhere in Britain.

Of course, there are imposters in the U.S, some of which take the name links and don’t do justice to it.

Links Magazine identified the following REAL links tracks – with full credit to the magazine for the following excerpts (with the additional point being that several of real tracks are in Oregon).

Bandon Dunes:  When Bandon Dunes’s designer, Scotsman David McLay Kidd, heard that there was gorse growing on the site of this first of the now five 18-holes courses at Bandon, he knew it might be possible to create a true links course there.  The site turned out to be everything he’d hoped for—and the result of Kidd’s work there has been lauded ever since.

Pacific Dunes:  Just along the coast from its Bandon Dunes sibling, Tom Doak’s design at Pacific Dunes similarly makes the most of its seaside setting.  Its rumpled fairways, tall marram grasses, and deep pot bunkers scream “links” from start to finish.

Old Macdonald:  Doak was back with Jim Urbina to pay homage to C.B. Macdonald at this third of Bandon’s links trio.  Holes with names like “Biarritz,” “Redan,” “Leven,” and “Alps” owe their lineage to their Scottish ancestors.

The Sheep Ranch:  Coore and Crenshaw’s contribution to Bandon’s bevy of links beauties just debuted and it’s a stunner, with more gorse than you can shake a niblick at and a tumbling, expansive seaside setting.

Cabot Links:  On the other side of North America, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canadian course designer Rod Whitman did his nation proud at this spectacular “New Scottish” links masterpiece.

Cabot Cliffs:  Though situated on higher ground than its neighbor, the Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw design at Cabot Cliffs is still every inch a pure links experience.  The closing three holes along the edge of the Gulf of St. Lawrence recall the Highlands at every step.

After having the great experience of taking several trips to Scotland – the homeland of my wife’s parents – I have come to love links golf.  And I agree that the courses in Bandon are not just an approximation of links golf; they are the real deal.

For me, one feature of links golf is this:  I use my 7-iron more than any other club.  Around but not on a green, I often use it to chip.  Also, from about 150-yards or so out, I might use my 7-iron to get the ball running over the usually hard links turf.

I remember the time U.S. golfer Phil Mickelson won The Open at Muirfield in Scotland.  And, at the time, he said he was glad he finally learned how to play links golf.

I also have come across some imposters, one of which is Chambers Bay near Olympia, Washington.  I only have played the course twice, but I continue to be amazed that the United States Golf Association chooses the site for some of its major tournaments. 

From a links golf perspective, I found Chambers Bay to be tricked up and not worth playing.

So, thanks again to Links Magazine for helping to define links golf.  I will continue playing such courses whenever I can, which means, I guess, traveling to Bandon, Nova Scotia, or Scotland.

COMPETING MEASURES COULD MUDDY OREGON’S CAMPAIGN FINANCE DEBATE

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.

Like the headline on this blog, political campaign finance itself is a muddy topic.  Not understood fully by most people, including me.

Therefore, what follows below, until the last paragraph, is how Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) described the current state of affairs in Oregon.  I feel free to use this material, with attribution of course, because OPB was one of my best clients when I worked as a lobbyist. 

Plus, the OPB professionals with whom and for whom I worked were routinely upbeat and positive, perhaps reflecting OPB’s top-level standing as a reliable news and public affairs source in the Northwest.  They would not mind be cribbing from their solid work.

So, here, from OPB:

After talks between left-leaning organizations broke down, three groups have filed proposals for reining in political spending in Oregon.

Weeks after they came to an impasse over how the state should crack down on money in politics, left-leaning organizations are signaling they might just fight it out at the ballot box.

Two groups that are often aligned filed dueling ballot measure proposals for how to place limits on the state’s permissive campaign finance laws.  Those proposals — one affiliated with public-sector labor and advocacy groups, the other from a private-sector union — join a series of three proposals filed earlier this month by good government groups.

The upshot is that six separate ideas for cracking down on political giving in the state have now been floated for the November 2022 ballot.  Many, if not most, will die before they reach voters, but even two competing campaign finance measures next year could create confusion that advocates have been hoping to avoid.

Oregon is one of a handful of states that places no limits on how much an individual or entity can give to candidates, a fact that has helped campaign spending explode in recent elections.

Meanwhile, voters have signaled they are eager to tamp down on money’s role in politics.  A ballot measure that altered the state Constitution to formally allow limits on campaign giving passed in a landslide last year.

Left-leaning groups that pushed the Constitutional change met frequently in private this year, attempting to come up with a consensus framework for new regulations.  Those talks broke down in early December.  Now different factions are coming out with their own ideas, which they say need to be filed right away to have a chance to collect enough signatures in time for a July deadline.

Those proposals include many similarities to campaign finance regulations that good government groups floated in their own ballot measure filings in early December.  They create a complex system of caps on how much various entities and political committees can donate to candidates and causes.  They would also require campaigns to disclose top donors in political ads, and force so-called “dark money” groups to reveal their financial backers if they are politically active.  And the proposed measures would create a system of public financing that would use tax dollars to bolster the campaigns of candidates who agreed to only accept donations of $250 or less per person.

But the new proposals also contain key differences from the framework good government groups have floated.  They are less strict when it comes to penalties for breaking campaign finance limits.

They also contain exemptions to the kinds of financial backers advocacy groups must disclose.  Some of those groups had worried they would lose out on crucial funding from charitable foundations if they were forced to name those foundations in connection with their political activities.

Whether any proposal lands before voters next year is hard to predict.  To qualify for the November 2022 ballot, a ballot measure campaign needs to collect 112,020 by July 8.  But even to get to the point of collecting signatures, advocates of campaign finance limits are likely to face challenges from opponents about what ballot language should look like, a process that can take months.

Once that’s done, collecting signatures amid the pandemic has proven costly and difficult.

So, based on OPB’s reporting above, my advice is not to hold your breath waiting for campaign finance limits to be legal in Oregon.  First, some voters could consider political giving to be a form of “free speech” (and even the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that way in the past); second, getting to the ballot will be a major challenge, given signature collection challenges, especially amidst the pandemic; and, winning at the ballot could prove to be an expensive challenge.

THE ROLE OF A CHIEF OF STAFF FOR A GOVERNOR OR A PRESIDENT

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.

It was bound to happen.  The only question was when.

What is the “it?”

A major media story on the chief of staff for President Joseph Biden. 

Chiefs of staff for a president always garner major coverage at some point because it is not an exaggeration to say that a chief of staff is one of the most powerful positions in the federal government.  Perhaps even the #2 person in terms of power and influence.

I always have been very interested in chief of staff positions, having seen some good ones in Washington, D.C. and several who failed miserably – and a number of the failures worked – or, shall we say, worshipped — at the feet of Donald Trump.

In this connection, I recommend an excellent book on this subject – The Gatekeepers:  How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency.  It is by Chris Whipple and, for political junkies like myself, it is worth reading as a detailed look into how government functions at the highest levels.

Two of the chapters deal with one of the persons whom everyone, reasonable Republicans and Democrats alike, agree was one of the best chiefs of staff in history, James Baker III.  He served both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, with a distinctive ability to marshal the forces of politics and facts in equal measure, which earned him his own book, as well as a stint as Secretary of the Treasury.

So, we come to the chief of staff for President Biden, Ron Klain.

Here’s the way Washington Post reporters Sean Sullivan and Tyler Pager started their story on Klain, the first major one on Klain I have seen after a year in the chief of staff job:

“As Joe Biden closed in on the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, top advisers approached him with a careful process for choosing and vetting a potential White House chief of staff.  Biden cut them short, pointing to one man whose experience in government outstripped anyone else:  ‘I want Ron.’

“But throughout his first year on the job, Ron Klain and his sterling credentials have repeatedly bumped against the unusual challenges of governing in today’s Washington.”

Klain faces the same challenges other chiefs of staff have faced over the years.  That includes attempting to manage or corral the ever-increasing size of the federal government.  It also includes playing gatekeeper for a president, which means setting out to decide which issues make it to the president’s desk and which do not.

And, now, it includes the pandemic.

According to Sullivan and Pager:

• Klain drew the ire of two key Democrats in Congress, antagonizing Senator Joe Manchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi amid disputes over legislative strategy and policy.  However, Klain maintains that he has good relationships with both and, despite differences, knows how to work with them.
• On the single biggest challenge facing the White House — battling the pandemic — Klain at times was reported to have irked the administration’s top official in charge of the coronavirus response, pushing that official, Jeff Zients, and his team to move faster in ways they found counterproductive.  Klain and Zients have denied any tension.
• Among the strongest criticisms of Klain are some from certain Democrats who say he has forged an alliance with the party’s left that has undercut Biden’s effectiveness and hurt the president’s political image.
• Many complaints center on negotiations with Capitol Hill over Biden’s agenda this past fall, with many Democrats charging that Klain acceded too often to the demands of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

At the same time, Klain, is praised by many in the White House and on Capitol Hill for his responsiveness and organizational abilities, and most important, is said by close associates of President Biden to retain the president’s confidence.

One senator, Richard Blumenthal, put it this way:

“I think that, by and large, he’s making the trains run on time — even though some of the boxcars may seem to be empty some of the time.”

One of the Biden’s Administration successes was passage of a landmark infrastructure package – and even some of his detractors believe Klain gets at least some credit for the positive result, which was underlined yesterday as Biden traveled to Pittsburgh to tout the bill just hours after a major bridge collapsed.

Finally, Sullivan and Pager summarize their story on Klain this way:

“Few chiefs of staff have entered the job facing such daunting challenges, and if nothing else, Klain is credited by many with quickly restoring order to a government that had been engulfed in chaos and recrimination.  Given the wreckage left by the Trump presidency, his supporters say, simply reestablishing traditional practices was itself an accomplishment.”

I agree.

In Oregon, I have worked with a few chiefs of staff for an Oregon governor.

One of the best, if not the best, was Gerry Thompson, who served as chief of staff for the last Republican governor in Oregon, Vic Atiyeh.  I worked for Thompson and she did more than “make the trains run on time.”

She played a major role in most public policy issues, yielding to the governor, of course, but asserting her own perspective.  One of the best examples was when, with the governor, she led Oregon’s fight against the Rajneesh cult, which threatened to try to take over Eastern Oregon, committing several major crimes along the way.

All of us in the Governor’s Office played a role in that successful defense against the Rajneesh offensive, but Gerry led the way.  My role?  Well, I often conferred with Gerry about a source we had within the Rejneesh camp who alerted us to crimes under way.  I also coordinated the State of Oregon’s response to the Rajneesh action to dump homeless persons in Oregon, register them to vote, and, thus, try to control who won elective office, at least in Portland…all with Gerry’s wise counsel.

As a lobbyist, I also related to two chiefs of staff of staff to Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  One was Bill Wyatt, the son of an Oregon Congressman.  The other was Tim Imeson, who cut his teeth working for Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield in Washington, D.C.

Both exemplified an important credential for a chief of staff – approachability.  But both also displayed another credential – listening, but not committing a governor to a specific action, turf better left to the governor. 

Overall, this also was an important credential:  Striking the delicate balance between politics and policy.

Back to the federal scene.  It will be interesting to see how long Klain lasts in the chief of staff job.  It is an insane job, one reason for which is that there are not hours of work.  You always are on call.

Stamina is, thus, a major issue.  Both for Klain and for his boss, Biden.

IN A LEGISLATIVE BODY, WHAT HAPPENS WITH “SPLIT CONTROL?”

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 answer to the question in this blog headline is two-fold:

• Either split control requires actions in the middle between both Republicans and Democrats…

• Or, split control means nothing other than disagreement – sometimes heated.

I write this for a couple reasons.

First, Congress, which is essentially split between Republicans and Democrats – specifically 50-50 in the U.S. Senate – produces a lot of disagreement (with a few exceptions) as both sides compete to advance THEIR cause. 

Second, as I reflect on the Oregon Legislature back in my days as a state lobbyist, I remember when both the House and Senate were divided evenly and the result was compromise.  Good compromise.

In 2011, the Legislature was split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, much different than today where Democrats rule the roost.

The even split meant that, if anyone wanted to produce a result, they had to work the middle.  Find compromise.  Find the middle.

As a lobbyist, I loved that because all my clients were interested in contributing to modest solutions, not extremes from either side.  Note that I said “all” because a hallmark of the lobbyists in a firm I helped to found was a commitment to make government work better.  To protect clients, sure.  But, also to find workable solutions to public policy problems.

In 2011, the even split in the Oregon House was addressed with the selection of two co-speakers, Democrat Arnie Roblan and Republican Bruce Hanna.  I lobbied both and they welcomed discussions about how to proceed before decisions were made.

The two were selected by Governing Magazine among its eight “Public Officials of the Year,” and praised for “setting in motion a tenure that has been marked by rare bi-partisan cooperation and two of the most productive legislative sessions in Oregon’s history.”

In the Oregon Senate, the split resulted in the installation of Senator Peter Courtney as Senate President, an office he held for years.  As the longest serving senator in Oregon’s history, he recently announced that he won’t run for re-election, which means that, for the first time in years, there will be a new Senate President in the 2023 regular legislative session.

So, there you have it.  Two approaches.

In Congress, split control usually produces divisiveness, selfishness, and rancor.

In Oregon, at least in the past, split control worked to produce better public policy decisions.

ASKING A GOOD QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOU “FOR?”

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.

It tended to get lost in the shuffle of a long news conference, but President Joe Biden asked a good question the other day.

It was this:  What are Republicans for?

Karen Tumulty, deputy editorial page editor for the Washington Post, went on to write this:

“What are Republicans for?  Name me one thing they’re for.”

“When President Biden posed that question at his news conference Wednesday, he no doubt meant it rhetorically.

“But there is, in fact, an answer.  Today’s Republicans are for whatever they think can restore them to power.  When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked what agenda Republicans plan to run on in their bid to regain control of Congress in this year’s mid-term elections, he replied:  “That is a very good question, and I’ll let you know when we take it back.”

Now, national Republicans no doubt would dispute that they have no agenda.  So, they should announce what it is – if it actually exists.  Then, we could use that information to help us vote next year.

During my long career in and around state government, I always said it was important for the clients I represented to be FOR something, not just AGAINST something.

For that reason, I always counseled clients to come up with ideas to propose to the Oregon Legislature because I said it still mattered to “have ideas.”

• If clients had concerns about the rate of state spending, they should be FOR citing examples of what could be cut, not just oppose spending generally.   
• If clients had concerns about the regulation of health insurance, they should be FOR providing specific examples of how burdensome regulation boosted costs for policyholders.
• If clients had concerns that there wasn’t enough money being directed to low-income health care, they should be FOR finding innovative ways to show how low-income health care funding would benefit the entire state.

[In fact, that’s exactly what Providence Health & Services did by enabling nurses and doctors to advocate for the spending – call them investments – given their first-hand, on-the-ground knowledge of the benefits.]

• If a client wanted to advocate for funds to deepen the Columbia River channel to aid maritime commerce, it should be FOR showing how the project would benefit export or import businesses in every county in Oregon, as well as the region.

[In fact, that’s exactly what the main channel deepening advocate, the Port of Portland, did to illustrate benefits for businesses in every corner of the region.]

Back to Tumulty for comments on huge national “BE FOR SOMETHING” issues:

• In the coming months, national Republicans will have to come up with something that resembles an agenda, if only for appearance’s sake.  Questions abound about the seriousness of that effort and whether the Republican policy platforms will amount to much more than a messaging effort.
• The GOP once prided itself, justifiably, on an intellectual seriousness that had made it the “party of ideas.”  That label was bestowed on it in 1980 by a Democrat, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Five years later, fresh off being re-elected in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. history, President Ronald Reagan declared:  “The tide of history is moving irresistibly in our direction.  Why?  Because the other side is virtually bankrupt of ideas.  It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate.  It has spent its intellectual capital.”
• Now, pretty much the same could be said for the Republicans themselves.  There was a time when it was easy to define conservatism as a set of principles.  Republicans had their share of raging internal debates, but they always brought it back to a few big concepts — among them, limiting the size and reach of government, reducing taxes, strengthening national defense, and holding firm to traditional moral values.  
• That Republicans had become completely dismissive of policy was obvious at least by 2020, when the party didn’t even bother to write a platform for its convention. The one-page document the GOP produced asserted merely that the Republican National Committee enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today.”
•  Shorter version:  We’re for whatever shifting sands Trump happens to be standing upon at the moment.

Now, Republicans seem to be retaining the same bankruptcy.  They have no ideas.  They just want, as Tumulty avers, to stand on the shifting sands of Trump positions.

As Americans, we should not let them get away with failing to announce  reasons why we should trust them with our national future.  The same expectation should exist for Democrats.

JOE BIDEN AFTER ONE YEAR AS PRESIDENT: SUCCESS OR FAILURE? AND WHAT’S NEXT?

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.

In case you didn’t notice, President Joe Biden held a stand-alone news conference this week on the date of the end of his first year in office.  It lasted, incredibly, two hours.

Various commentators and pundits were quick to rate his performance, both in his first year, as well as in the press conference.

Not surprisingly, he got both credit and debit.

But there is one fact that rises above all others.

We should be grateful every day that Biden is in office rather than former president Donald Trump and the band of incompetents who used to run the government.

Washington Post editorial writers put it this way:

“One can only imagine how much worse off the country would be if Trump were still dispensing bizarre medical advice from the White House, running a Russia-friendly foreign policy as the Kremlin prepares to invade Ukraine, or continuing to deny climate change.

“Biden also has restored integrity to the Oval Office, neither lying nor abusing his authority the way Trump did.  And the president can claim some important accomplishments.  Most Americans are vaccinated.  His covid-19 aid bill alleviated child poverty during the worst of the pandemic. The country is only beginning to see the benefits of the $1 trillion bi-partisan infrastructure bill that will fund massive investments in green energy, highways, bridges and rail, which passed under his leadership.”

[As an aside here, I add that some Republicans who voted against the infrastructure bill are now lauding its benefits where they live.]

Further, the Post made a very salient point what it said that “a president controls only so much.  He or she can do little about inflation and even less about the viral genetic mutations that lead to new coronavirus variants.”

Too often in my experience, we expect presidents and governors to fix things, as if they had ultimate power to do so. They don’t.

As a state lobbyist, I often concluded this when I saw governors get credit for economic growth and debit for economic failure.  Mostly, they deserved neither…at least not full credit nor full debit.

What’s true now, according to several media analysts, is that Biden needs to tack toward the practical.  That could mean finding a way to endorse a smaller “Build Back Better” bill.   It could mean, despite a U.S. Supreme Court setback, continuing to advocate for virus vaccination mandates (though his vaccine initiative suffered another setback yesterday when a judge rules that a mandate for federal workers should not be allowed).

Washington Post commentator E. J. Dionne put Biden’s challenge this way:

“Here is where middle-of-the-road critiques of Biden are right: 

• “He needs to focus incessantly on the virus and inflation — twin challenges that are top of mind for most Americans.
• “He needs to settle on a strategy that reaches toward as much normality as is consistent with the virus threat, and he needs to put an end to confusing messaging from various parts of the government.
• “On inflation, he needs highly visible efforts to unsnarl the supply chain.
• “He needs to resolve the core contradiction of his presidency — between his longing to be the great unifier and his desire to do big things Republicans were bound to oppose.”

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson added this point:

“It must be deeply frustrating for President Biden to take stock of his underappreciated successes. His economic performance is being trashed after the creation of 6 million jobs. His economic stewardship is being questioned in a country with 3.9 per cent unemployment. His pandemic response is being broadly criticized even though more than 75 per cent of American adults have received at least one dose of the vaccine (compared with fewer than 20 per cent 10 months ago).”

“These claims< Gerson says, “are Biden administration talking points. They have the added virtue of being true.”  Which, I add, is a huge contrast with lies and exaggerations under Donald Trump.

Will Biden be able to strike this middle-of-road re-set?  No one knows.  But, what hangs in the balance as we approach the mid-term elections is, in fact, the future of his presidency.

THE INTENT TO ENGENDER CONTROVERSY IN TODAY’S POLITICS

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.

Seek controversy.

Avoid controversy.

Two options.

During my time dealing with the media in a 40-year professional career, I followed a simple axiom:  Limit or even avoid controversy.

• I advised managers I worked with in state government in that way. 

• I advised lobby clients in that way. 

• I advised public relations clients in that way.

Would I do the same today?

Well, that is my first instinct.

I almost always thought that keeping my clients out of controversial trouble was better than the reverse.  Honesty and forthrightness were better than becoming defensive, aggressive and testy.

However, as I look at an increasingly violent political world these days, I note that many political figures work to engender controversy, not avoid it.  They must believe controversy helps them achieve their objectives – and, if one of the objectives is to make enemies of those who don’t agree with you, then controversy works.

But, controversy, for its own sake, doesn’t improve the political context so public policy decisions can be made in a way that benefits the country.

Consider these examples of controversy seemingly for its own sake.

SENATOR RAND PAUL:  Paul has gone after Dr. Anthony Fauci by generating controversy.  He has used his website to generate political contributions by advocating that Fauci be fired. 

TRUMP ACOLYTES MARK MEADOWS AND KEVIN McCARTHY:  They use controversy to impugn the character and motives of anyone who disagrees them, including members of the U.S. House Committee that is investigating the January 6, 2021 “insurrection.”

[As an aside, I put the word “insurrection” in quotes because of a game going on now which is to dispute that the January 6 insurrection was exactly that.  Anyone with eyes and ears could see and hear that it was a violent attempt to take down the country – an “insurrection.”]

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:  In nearly all his actions, he covets returning to the nation’s highest political office by not only engendering controversy but inflaming it.

If President Joe Biden and Democrats say one thing, Trump says another.  If someone proposes actions against him, Trump skewers them in over-the-top words.

For my part, as a 40-year veteran of public policy processes, I like words, phrases and actions that seek and promote middle ground.  That don’t set out to inflame controversy.

Just call me Poly-Anna.

Plus, another virtue of my way of doing public policy is that we wouldn’t have to contend again with Trump.  A worthy end in and of itself.

ANOTHER “WORDS MATTER” BLOG: EXAMPLES THAT DEFINE “DUPLICITY”

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.

Isn’t duplicity a good word?

It sort of rolls off the tongue.

And, these days, it describes various individuals involved in “political” issues, as will be shown by three examples below.

First, the definition.  The dictionary defines duplicity as:

“Deceitfulness; double-dealing.”

Sound familiar?  It should.  Here, then, are the three examples as I focus on another good word – duplicity.

TUCKER CARLSON:  Washington Post contributing columnist Matt Bai says this about Carlson, the vehement leader of the far right as he emotes on Fox News:

“Normally, I don’t spend much time thinking about the nonsense on cable television, because it’s like paying attention to the guy on the street corner who shouts about Armageddon through a bullhorn.  Some words are just noise.

“Last week, though, Tucker Carlson acidly attacked a former colleague of mine, and what he said got me thinking about one of the most persistent myths of our media moment.

“Here’s what happened:  Jon Ward, a top political reporter at Yahoo News, was about to post a critical story about Carlson’s Fox News series looking at the 2020 election and the insurrection at the Capitol. (Shocker:  Carlson says it was all a leftist conspiracy.)

In a pre-emptive attack on Ward’s piece, Carlson launched into a tirade on his nightly Fox News show, accusing Ward of doctoring a transcript of Carlson’s on-air comments.

Even by the standards of prime-time cable, Carlson’s rant was remarkably personal.  

COMMENT:  Carlson is the epitome of bad journalism.  In fact, what he practices is not journalism at all.  It is the practice of defamation and intimidation, using the stage Fox News gives him to achieve both ends – and all for ratings.

In reality, Bai adds, “the easiest thing to do right now is what Carlson does — to seek out the ardent applause of one side or the other, because the more strident and predictable you are, the more eyeballs you attract and the more appreciation you’ll garner.

“If Carlson wants to know what weakness really looks like, he should give that mirror a longer look.”

Agreed.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:  In a decision last week, the Supreme Court says we cannot have in our workplaces what it has in its, which is to take the precautions necessary to keep a workplace safe.

Washington Post Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus makes this abundantly clear in a column she wrote over the weekend.

Commenting on a Supreme Court decision, she says, “The court has been effectively closed to outside visitors since the start of the pandemic.  Now that the justices have begun hearing oral arguments in person, the lawyers appearing before them, and the reporters in the chamber, must test negative and be masked, except when speaking.  Justices who aren’t comfortable with those protocols — or with the mask-less behavior of their colleagues — have the flexibility to work remotely.”

If only the court, Marcus opines, “were willing to allow extending similar protections to the rest of us, in our workplaces.  Or to be more precise, not to interfere with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s effort to provide such protections.

“The factory workers standing cheek by jowl on assembly lines, the office workers crammed side by side at their cubicles, the cashiers and sales clerks at retail establishments — none of them enjoy the guaranteed safety protocols that the court has awarded to itself.”

COMMENT:  The duplicity of some members of the Court was illustrated even more vividly last week when Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared for oral arguments without a mask.

Marcus writes that “the court’s 6-to-3 ruling Thursday blocking the Biden Administration’s vaccine-or-test mandate is yet another example of the elite playing by one set of rules while applying a different standard to the masses.”

Agreed.

NOVAK DJOKOVIC:  This example is almost too obvious to cite.  The reigning tennis star exemplified duplicity when he tried to travel to the Australian Open in Melbourne without being vaccinated.  That would have a violation of Australia rules requiring vaccines.

COMMENT:  What he thought, I guess, was he was such a sports star that he deserved preferential treatment.

Didn’t happen.

Authorities in Australia, after a bit of to’ing and fro’ing, finally ruled that he could not play and so deported him.

Good.

These three examples illustrate that duplicity is rampant.  It should not be.

Better to value transparency, honesty, and forthrightness in all we do – both in politics and in life.

IS THE OREGON STATE CAPITOL LOCKED DOWN OR NOT?

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 question posed in this blog comes up for a simple reason:  There is no direct, specific answer.

And, does the lack of an answer matter?

It does for some and not for others.

For me, as a lobbyist, before I retired, it would have mattered.  I spent much of my time in the Capitol Building lobbying legislators on behalf of my firm’s clients.

But, at the Capitol for so many years, it always struck me as strange that access was so easy.  Especially in Salem which is the home of major prison and mental health facilities only blocks away from the Capitol.

All this has changed recently with an announcement by Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Tina Kotek.  It said this:

“Anyone entering the Capitol will be required to pass through a security checkpoint.  That entails walking through metal detectors staffed by security guards and having bags checked by hand or sent through an X-ray machine.” 

Finally.

At the same time, all committee meetings during the coming February short session will be held virtually, which is why I say therCapitol is both open and closed.

My word “finally” was echoed this week by my friend, Dick Hughes, former editorial page editor of the Salem Statesman Journal and now a columnist for Oregon Capitol Insider.

He wrote this:

“Top of Form

Bottom of Form

When I began covering the Oregon Legislature full-time, I could enter the State Capitol because, as a member of the Capitol press corps, I had a key.  

“…That around-the-clock access had been handy.  I beat other reporters on stories not because I had more talent or smarts – I don’t – but because I outworked them.  In the 1980s, I learned to be the last one in the pressroom each day, especially on Friday nights when state regulators tended to drop off press releases announcing the latest closures of insolvent banks. I sometimes came in on weekends to write in quiet or to check the press release drop-box.”

Further Hughes remembers what I remember…this:

Savvy state officials, such as Secretary of State Norma Paulus, periodically strolled through the pressroom to share news tips before heading home. Back then, security was so relaxed that Governor Vic Atiyeh often ate lunch in the Capitol cafeteria with everyone else.

I also remember when Atiyeh – I worked for him as his press secretary – would venture down to the pressroom in the basement to talk personally with reporters.  I never knew what stories would develop, though the governor’s conduct illustrated two of his best qualities – openness and accessibility.

Hughes also that, in contrast to Atiyeh, Senate President John Kitzhaber was not easy to catch. 

“At the end of the day,” Hughes remembers, “he would occasionally hang out by the governor’s SUV – long before they were called SUVs – in the Capitol’s underground parking garage, hoping for a brief interview.

All this occurred with a fully open Capitol building.

The new Capitol security changes were expected after the 2021 Legislature banned holders of concealed weapon permits from having their firearms in the Capitol.  Of course, it is natural to use metal detectors to verify that the ban is working.

Further, the Legislature’s presiding officers ordered legislative employees to work remotely whenever possible and confirmed the point that committee meetings in February would be held virtually, not in person.

So, I am sure how my former colleagues in my lobbying firm will function in their bid – actually “their need” – to talk with legislators on behalf of clients.  They may have to continue to resort to less-than-personal means, such as phone calls, texts, and e-mails.

Of course, there always is the opportunity to meet with legislators outside the Capitol building. 

For me, just glad I am not there any longer, metal detectors and all.

ANOTHER WORD ON “EXPERTS”

This is the second of two blogs on the subject of “experts”

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.

Yesterday, I wrote a blog about how to avoid relying solely on certain experts, even as you form your own views, especially on political issues.

As examples of “experts,” I used President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who have engaged in an aggressive war of words over voting laws in the United States, especially in Georgia.  And they fancy themselves, surely, as “experts.”

Today, I follow-up with another blog on the same subject – expertise.

In this second installment, I use, as food-for-thought, a column yesterday by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post.  It appeared under this headline:

The GOP celebration of covid ignorance is an invitation to death

His main point:  Avoid relying on any “expert” who peddles lies.  Which, often, means Donald Trump and his acolytes.

Here is how Gerson started his column:

“When the future judges our political present, it will stand in appalled, slack-jawed amazement at the willingness of GOP leaders to endanger the lives of their constituents — not just the interests of their constituents, but their lungs and beating hearts — in pursuit of personal power and ideological fantasies.”

And, it could be added, these individuals fancy themselves – and promote themselves – as experts.

Gerson identifies what he labels “three varieties of GOP political necromania.”

• The first, practiced most vigorously by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, uses an ongoing pandemic as a stage for the display of ideological zeal.  In this view, the covid-19 crisis — rather than being a story of remarkable but flawed scientists and public health experts deploying the best of science against a vicious microbe — has been an opportunity for the left to impose “authoritarian, arbitrary and seemingly never-ending mandates and restrictions.”
• A second type of the Republican romance with death comes in the vilification of those most dedicated to preserving the lives of Americans.  Public officials such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul invent a conspiratorial backstory to the covid crisis and depict the most visible representatives of the United States’ covid response as scheming, deceptive deep-state operatives.  Any change in emphasis or strategy by scientists — an essential commitment of the scientific method — is viewed as rich opposition research.
• A third category of Republican death wish is the practice of strategic ignorance.  In a case such as Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson — America’s most reliable source of unreliable information about covid-19 — such ignorance might not be feigned.  He might well believe that gargling with mouthwash call kill the coronavirus, and that thousands of people are regularly dying from vaccine side effects, and that a pandemic that has taken more than 800,000 lives in the United States is “overhyped.”

Gerson says Johnson offers his lack of intellectual seriousness as an element of his political appeal — “similar to handing out a résumé with the firings and felonies highlighted.

“Johnson is not only making dangerous statements about the coronavirus. He is using his willingness to cite stupid things as the evidence of his independence from the rule of professionals and experts.  He is defining democracy, in the words of Tom Nichols, author of “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters,” as unearned respect for unfounded opinions.”  

Johnson, Gerson writes, is practicing strategic ignorance.

And, Gerson adds:

“During a pandemic, the celebration of ignorance is an invitation to death.  Public health depends on social cooperation.  If a significant group of Americans regard the musing of a politician such as Johnson as equal in value to Fauci’s lifelong accumulation of expertise, the basis for rational action is lost.  And the result is needless death.”

And, it also underlines the best advice for us – choose wisely the “experts” on whom you rely as you go through the process of forming your own views.