WE NEED A BREAK FROM PERMANENT ELECTION FRENZY

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

I have written in the past about the perils of the “permanent election campaign,” in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Oregon House.

In both places, those who win election serve only for two years, so, as soon as they win, the next campaign starts.

Instead of “legislating,” (deciding on useful additions to U.S. or Oregon laws) the 435 members of the U.S. House and the 60 members of the Oregon House start campaigning, often with a negative twist compounded by irritating TV ads.

Essayist Joseph Epstein, in a piece for the Wall Street Journal this morning, added to my thinking.  His column carried this subhead:

A dispiriting mid-term cycle has only just finished and the 2024 presidential race has already started.

Here is how his column started:

“Has there ever been an election so relentlessly dreary as the one we have just been through?  The day after Election Day a cable-show panelist remarked that ‘there are only 727 days until the next election.’  He laughed. I didn’t.

“I’m suffering from political exhaustion.  I’m bored and saddened, satiated with talk of electoral politics.  In some places, it took nearly three weeks to count the votes.  I’ve seen more polls than Poland has Poles.  And most of those polls turned out to be wrong.

“Mistaken predictions from so-called experts preponderated.  There was no tsunami, wave, or serious turning of any tide in the political fortunes of the country.  I have seen all the TV white boards I care ever to see, with men in shirt sleeves — the working press? — indicating states, counties, cities, neighborhoods going for one party or the other.”

Worst of all, Epstein adds, have been the TV ads.  He says more than $16 billion – yes, “billion” — was spent this cycle, “a sum that could pay to house the homeless, return the insane back to safe mental institutions, or buy eight NBA franchises.

“The vast majority of these ads were on the attack, entirely negative, not advancing a candidate’s best qualities but setting out what a swine his or her opponent is.

“On one side, relatively obscure incumbent Members of Congress were accused of bringing on inflation, causing urban crime, opening up the borders, turning the country over to socialism.  On the other side, opposing politicians were accused of being threats to democracy, supporters of systemic racism, in favor of cutting off women’s access to health services.”

Epstein goes on to cite what he calls “particularly Machiavellian strategy: Contributing to the defeat of formidable candidates in the other party’s primary so you face a weaker opponent in the general election.”  This happened, among other places, in Illinois.

Now, Donald Trump’s announced bid for another term in the White House – perish the thought – will only add to the blather.

Epstein concludes:

“How much better things would be if time — eight or nine months, say —were set aside to knock off all the blather, kick back, chill.  But it is not to be; perhaps it never will be again, and the country will henceforth live in a permanent state of electoral frenzy:  A state of claim and counter-claim, insults delivered and returned, hyperbole everywhere, agitation reigning generally.”

With Epstein, I do not hold out much hope for change.

I am not sure what the solution is.  One, of course, would be that people of goodwill and good intent run for Congress or the Oregon House and, then, bring along smart credentials to get about the business of governing.

Too much to expect?  Probably.

But another good solution, at least a partial one, exists.  Make terms for the U.S. House and the Oregon House four years, not just two.  At least that would delay the inevitable – more campaigning and electioneering.

UNFORTUNATELY, “FALSE EQUIVALENCE” DOMINATES POLITICS THESE DAYS

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

There is a term in politics and elsewhere that is gaining a lot of attention these days:  “False equivalence.”

What does it mean?

It is when two opposing sides of an argument are made to look like they hold equal weight when they really don’t.  And, presenting both views as valid is a logical fallacy, or, to use the term, a “false equivalence.”

One real-world, down-to-earth example:  “Dogs have tails and feet, and cats have tails and feet. Therefore, dogs are equivalent to cats.”

It is obvious to see why this argument falls flat.  Simply the fact that two things might have similar properties does not mean they are equivalent in all respects. 

The example above is intentionally absurd to help identify the fallacy.  But it can be hard to spot false equivalencies in this world, including, if not especially, in politics.

A friend got me thinking about the subject of “false equivalence” and he and I had a good discussion with him about examples in politics today. 

For one thing, there is a notion that Democrats and Republicans are equal in their bids to get rid of democracy in America.  No.  It is Republicans who often set out to trash America’s system of governance to avoid allowing “the people to speak.”  The Rs want to be the ones who speak and damn others who disagree with them. 

Of course, Democrats are not immune from overstatement.  But, do they generally favor violence and hate to tear America down?  No.

A piece of good news is that in the recent mid-term election most of those who follow Trump as democracy haters and who call themselves “election deniers” lost.

False equivalence also reigns in climate change.  A small percentage of non-authoritative scientists’ opinions are given equal weight or seen as “competing against” 99 per cent of scientists’ opinions. 

Or, anti-vaccine activists have proclaimed they have just as much solid scientific evidence as pro-vaccine scientists.  But anti-vaccinators’ evidence is largely anecdotal. 

Why are we susceptible to false equivalence? 

Because it simplifies our thinking.  There are less critical thinking skills needed when we accept two things as equal, rather than unequal.  In addition, when someone (especially a person in authority) tells us two things are equivalent, we might tend to believe it more due to his or her inherent position or power.

Consider this current example of false equivalence.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, in a bid to obtain what he lusts after, being Speaker of the House, has announced that he intends to avoid giving committee seats to three Democrat representatives.  They are Adam Schiff, Eric Salwell, and Ilhan Omar.  All have served on committees in the past, but now appear to be the focus of McCarthy’s exclusion. 

McCarthy compares his tactic to the Democrats’ actions to remove Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Representative Paul Gosar from their committee assignments when the Ds were in charge.

And, today, the Wall Street Journal – unfortunately, I think – has gone on record editorially contending that McCarthy is just doing what Democrats did before him, so his actions are appropriate.  But, it is just the “get even” strategy in politics these days that indicates how far Congress is from finding middle ground.

As for “false equivalence,” consider what Greene and Gosar did by going on-line to advocate killing Democrats they didn’t like.  Yes, killing!

Greene promoted the execution of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Gosar posted an animated video in which his avatar executes Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a sword.  

By contrast, Schiff, Salwell and Omar disagreed with McCarthy on politics.   

Well, in all of this, how do all of us fight back against false equivalence? 

• First, educate yourself on the different forms it takes so you can recognize it. 
• Next, call it out when you see it – at least call it out to yourself. 
• Next, distance yourself from the source of it.
• And, most of all, don’t succumb to it. 

A TIRED STUNT BY KEVIN McCARTHY

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

To many Republicans, America is no longer the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Especially if the country provides a sanctuary for immigrants.  So, the country would no longer be “white America.”

After all, some would say, immigrants are not Americans, so why welcome them?  And, of course, that omits a fact about this country – in various ways, all of us are immigrants.

The stunt in this blog headline refers to what a Member of Congress did who wants, above all else, to be Speaker of the U.S. House.  The member, Kevin McCarthy, managed to get out of Washington, D.C. to head to the southern border.

There, he railed against immigration and said Republicans in the House intend to impeach the director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas.

Mayorkas, to put a point on it, works for President Joe Biden, not for McCarthy.  But, no surprise here, McCarthy continues to identify issues that can inflame his base.

Here’s how Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman captured McCarthy’s stunt:

“If you are a member of Congress headed to the United States southern border, you will need a few things.  A camera crew, of course — if a politician preens on the border and no one records it, it makes no sound. Comfortable shoes are a must, since you might climb down to the shore of the Rio Grande to gaze determinedly into Mexico, and you don’t want to slip in your wingtips.

“Finally, you must purchase an appropriate shirt.  Ideally, it should be olive or khaki, and it’s best if it has tactical pockets.  If you think someone might say, ‘Who are you kidding with that shirt, Congressman?  Are you going to crawl through the brush in pursuit of cartel assassins?” don’t worry, no one will.’

“House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s trip to the border on Tuesday was a reminder:  No stage outside of Washington is more regularly ascended by costumed congressmembers than the southern border.  But, unlike media events that bring useful attention to an issue, when politicians prance around at the border it makes actual reform less likely, not more.”

There is absolutely no reason, Waldman adds, that McCarthy couldn’t have made his announcement from a room in the U.S. Capitol.  But if he did that, he and the other Republican members who accompanied him wouldn’t get to put on their outfits, nod seriously as they listen to Border Patrol agents, and point meaningfully south.

The truth is that Republicans’ desire “To Do Something” about immigration is severely limited.  What they want more than anything else, Waldman says, is an issue they can use to anger and terrify their base, as they reliably do in almost every election.  And the fact that immigration largely failed to produce the results they hoped for in this year’s mid-terms, just as it did in 2020 and 2018, has not deterred them.

That solution to the country’s challenges with immigration would require a comprehensive bill that incorporated both parties’ priorities and reformed the immigration system for the better.  While details would be negotiated, it would almost certainly involve increased border security funding; stricter confirmation of workers’ legal status; a path to citizenship for “dreamers” brought to the United States as children and other undocumented immigrants here a long time; reform the guest worker program so people could come here temporarily to work then return to home countries; and increases in legal immigration.

More from Waldman:

“That kind of a deal would give Republicans what they want, give Democrats what they want and reduce the incentives for people to come here illegally.  The trouble is that Republicans know that if they agree to any kind of compromise, their base voters will revolt, just as they have before when immigration reform was attempted.

“So we’re left with border photo ops, inflammatory TV ads and lurid tales of immigrant crime.  That makes it harder for Republicans to join in a reform effort that involves anything other than building walls and cracking down, even if being ‘tough’ doesn’t solve the problem.”

So, my view is that Republicans are guilty of using immigration to inflame the base of right-wing members of their party.  Democrats are guilty of failing to propose workable alternatives to business as usual – and, if they did, Republicans at least would have to respond to something real. In the end, both parties share blame for failing to right the ship of i

THANKSGIVING IS A TIME TO EMPHASIZE BEING THANKFUL – BUT ALSO TO REMEMBER THESE GREAT READINGS FROM 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 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 many ways, I hope Thanksgiving is a time for just this — “THANKS.”

Not for focusing on politics.

But, then New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a piece today that manages to capture both topics – thanksgiving and politics.  It caught my attention.

Here are the opening paragraphs of what he wrote:

“I always enjoy Thanksgiving, but I’m particularly going to savor this year’s in light of the midterm elections.  They surfaced something beautiful and decent and vitally important in the soul of the nation.  It was a readiness to defend the core of our democracy — our ability to peacefully and legitimately transfer power — when it was under imminent threat by Donald Trump and his imitators.

“Had we lost our commitment to the solemn obligation that one party smoothly hands off power to another, we’d be totally lost as a country today.  But instead, democracy was reaffirmed.  Enough Americans — principled Republicans, Democrats and independents — sorted through their ballots and rejected almost all of the high-profile Trumpist election deniers for major state and federal offices.

“In ‘using the tools of democracy to protect democracy,’ as Vox put it, they reconnected the country with something deep in our heritage — that losers concede gracefully and move on, and winners win gracefully and govern.”

To celebrate that great tradition, Friedman offered what he called “five readings for your Thanksgiving table:”

I repeat them here because, (a) they emphasize one of the great distinctions of democracy – willing and losing gracefully, (b) they contrast so well what America managed to avoid, so far at least, which is more Trump, and (c) they represent another reason to be thankful.

September 19, 1796, excerpts from President George Washington’s Farewell Address, explaining that he would not seek a third term and the most important lessons he had learned:

“The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you.  It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. … You should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness. … With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country … there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. …

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.  But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.  The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

December 13, 2000, Al Gore’s concession speech after the Supreme Court effectively handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush:

“Good evening.  Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. … Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency: ‘Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism.  I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.’ Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country.  Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly, neither of us wanted it to happen.  Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy. …

“The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken.  Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it.  I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.  And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.  I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends. …

“This is America, and we put country before party; we will stand together behind our new president. … As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe, as my father once said, that ‘no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out. …’

“And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others:  It’s time for me to go.”

December 13, 2000, George W. Bush’s speech accepting Al Gore’s concession:

“Vice President Gore and I put our hearts and hopes into our campaigns. We both gave it our all.  We shared similar emotions, so I understand how difficult this moment must be for Vice President Gore and his family.  He has a distinguished record of service to our country as a congressman, a senator and a vice president.  This evening I received a gracious call from the vice president.  We agreed to meet early next week in Washington, and we agreed to do our best to heal our country after this hard-fought contest.

“Tonight, I want to thank all the thousands of volunteers and campaign workers who worked so hard on my behalf.  I also salute the vice president and his supporters for waging a spirited campaign.  And I thank him for a call that I know was difficult to make. …

“I have something else to ask you, to ask every American. I ask for you to pray for this great nation.  I ask for your prayers for leaders from both parties.  I thank you for your prayers for me and my family, and I ask you to pray for Vice President Gore and his family.”

In his memoir “A Promised Land,” President Barack Obama recalled six words that he shared with his staff on April 27, 2011, after holding a news conference at the White House announcing the release of his long-form birth certificate to end the bogus but distracting claims by Trump, and other “carnival barkers,” that he was not born in the U.S.:

“I exited through the sliding doors that led back into the communications team’s offices, where I encountered a group of junior members of our press shop who’d been watching my remarks on a TV monitor.  They all looked to be in their 20s.  Some had worked on my campaign; others had only recently joined the administration, compelled by the idea of serving their country.  I stopped and made eye contact with each one of them.

“‘We’re better than this,’ I said.  ‘Remember that.’”

June 9, 2022, Representative Liz Cheney’s opening statement at the House January 6 committee’s initial public hearing:

“Tonight, I am going to describe for you some of what our committee has learned and highlight initial findings you will see this month in our hearings.  As you hear this, all Americans should keep in mind this fact:  On the morning of January 6, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain president of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power.  Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power.  In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan. …

“There is a reason why people serving in our government take an oath to the Constitution.  As our founding fathers recognized, democracy is fragile. People in positions of public trust are duty-bound to defend it — to step forward when action is required. … That oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible:  There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

So, to conclude, if you have feared for the future of our country as I have, take heart in these words you read above.  They are the words of statesmen and women. 

If they are repeated in the future, as they should be, our country’s democracy will remain strong against those who wish it ill – which means Trump and his ilk.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving! 

IRONY OF IRONIES

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

Atlantic Magazine wrote this headline yesterday:

“Two wealthy and self-involved men are seeking the attention they crave.”

It was a headline to underline how stupid it is that two narcissists – Elon Musk and Donald Trump – are “generating news” again because Musk says he will allow Trump back on Twitter and Trump says he is not sure he wants back on.

The Atlantic writer went on:

“This entire incident is terrifically stupid.  The story revolves around the whims of two wealthy and self-involved men who enjoy nothing more than public attention.  It is an enormous waste of everyone’s time, and I resent having to think about it.”

Then, the writer not only thinks about it, he writes about it at length. 

Irony of ironies. 

He says the ego-driven duo don’t matter, then he writes about how much they matter to him.

I won’t, so this is the end!

THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES WORTH REMEMBERING IS OPEN AGAIN

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

I could open this department every day, given all the good quotes that appear in at least three places – the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Atlantic Magazine.

As director of the department, I have the ability to open or stay closed.

For today, here are new quotes worth remembering.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “Audiences hold their breath whenever Biden speaks. ‘I want to thank the prime minister for Colombia’s leadership,’ he said last week in Cambodia.  Days earlier he mentioned Russian forces ‘pulling back from Fallujah,’ which was a flashback to the Iraq war.  Last month he said Democrats campaigning during 2018 ‘went to 54 states’ — which is two more states than even progressives want to create.”

COMMENT:  My point is not to pick on the president because I admire his decency, especially in relation to one Donald Trump.  But, at age 80, Biden should consider retiring at the end of his current term.  Enable other Democrat leaders to take up the mantle and retire into being a statesman.

He has had a penchant for gaffes over the years, but the examples cited above are not “gaffes.”  They are one mark of an old person, like me, who sometimes forgets the words he/she wants to use.

My point about Biden’s is not meant as age description.  It’s just that, as president, we need someone who is able to cope with the huge strenuous demands of the job.

MORE FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  A piece by Joe Lonsdale and Judge Glock, two officials from the Cicero Institute, says this:

“Five days before winning re-election as California’s governor, Gavin Newsom surprised local leaders by rejecting every single plan put forward by a city, county, or organization to fight homelessness — and withholding $1 billion in state money until those plans improve.  He said he’d convene a meeting this month to discuss what really works.  He should start with what doesn’t work: everything California has done for years.

“Residents have known for years what Newsom has only belatedly recognized:  That the government is failing to address the problem. Homelessness is a nationwide problem, but nowhere is it as bad as in the Golden State.  More than 150,000 Californians are homeless on any given night. Most of those — about 70 per cent — are unsheltered.  They live outside in streets and parks.  Despite billions in state and local spending every year, more than half of the country’s unsheltered homeless are in California.

“California’s failed approach to homelessness is built around the ‘housing first’ model.  The goal is to get every long-term homeless person into a permanent, government-subsidized home — with no pre-qualifications like sobriety, drug treatment or psychiatric care.  Until that goal is reached, the state will allow people to camp and sleep almost anywhere and to do almost anything.

“Unless Newsom is willing to get serious about confronting the underlying ideological problems with his state’s homeless policy, all his recent promises are just talk.  Instead of spending billions on dubious housing programs, he should make sure immediate shelters are available for those who need them.  He should tie new long-term housing to mandatory drug, alcohol and mental-health treatment.  And he should take action against dangerous, unsanctioned public camping.

COMMENT:  Political leaders in Oregon – especially in Portland – should note this column.  To this point, they have made some of same mistakes California has made. 

FROM PEGGY NOONAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Chris Christie got a standing ovation from the Republican Governors’ Association this week after delivering fiery words that captured the inner views of audience members, including GOP officeholders from 50 states, donors, party figures and operatives.  The former New Jersey governor told them voters in the mid-terms ‘rejected crazy.’

“Christie said the midterms were an actual change point in the history of the party:  That its central struggle can no longer be avoided.  That struggle is how and why to put Trump in the rearview mirror.

“It can’t be dodged and can no longer be the problem that dare not speak its name:  ‘We can’t lead and convince Trump folks if we’re unwilling to stick our necks out and say his name.’ Over the next 18 months, leaders will have to take a side and go to Trump supporters to make the case against him.  ‘There needs to be a fight out loud, in public. The only way it becomes a winning argument is transparent and public.’

“The strongest argument: Mr. Trump can’t win, and if you truly seek to win you must disengage from him.

“’This is a baseball country,’ Christie said.  ‘It’s always three strikes and you’re out.’  Trump struck out in 2018, 2020 and 2022.  He never came close to a plurality of the popular vote.”

COMMENT:  Yes, Republicans should dump Trump and move on – to “whatever,” which will be better than Trump.  As Noonan advocates, it is time for Republicans to have the dump Trump debate.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Your editorial lists several of Trump’s character flaws —’narcissism, lack of self-control, abusive treatment of advisers, his puerile vendettas’ — but missed one.  Consider mural dyslexia, the seeming inability to read the writing on the wall.

COMMENT:  Well said.  Trump only reads what HE writes.

MORE ACCOLADES FOR POST WRITER MICHAEL GERSON

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

Tributes keep pouring in for Michael Gerson, the Washington Post columnist and former speech writer for President George Bush, who died a couple days ago, far too soon at the age of 58.

Tributes?  For good reason.

Gerson was not a perfect human being.  No one is. 

But he lived with grace and style, including the ability to put good words together to make solid points that prompted thought and reflection.

As I said in a previous blog post commemorating his death after a long battle with cancer, he was one of my favorite writers.  He had a notable ability to advocate for a point-of-view, his, even as he allowed others to disagree with him.

One of his consummate abilities:  To disagree agreeably.

Another:  His credentials as a committed Christian who lived his faith.

Here are just a couple of the new accolades, both from colleagues at the Washington Post:

FROM OPINION COLUMNIST KAREN TUMULTY:  “One of the biblical injunctions sometimes cited by Michael Gerson Comes from the New Testament book of Colossians:  ‘Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.’

“That advice works not only for Christian believers such as he was, but also in the sometimes brutal political world in which he made his mark.  He was a presidential speechwriter whose own words were, indeed, singularly seasoned and notably full of grace.

“But civility, as Mike also noted, does not preclude tough-mindedness. Nor should it be mistaken for a lack of principles or perspective. His own were rooted in the faith that fueled and defined his involvement with politics, and he was scorching in his assessment of his fellow evangelicals when theirs took what he saw as a more cynical turn.

“In a September essay, he wrote these supposedly conservative Christians ‘have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue.  In the place of integrity, the Trump movement has elevated a warped kind of authenticity — the authenticity of unfiltered abuse, imperious ignorance, untamed egotism and reflexive bigotry.’

“’This,’ Mike wrote, ‘is inconsistent with Christianity by any orthodox measure.’”

FROM JEN BALDERAMA, POST ASSOCIATE EDITOR:  “As news of his death spread, the tributes poured in, with friends and admirers remembering Mike’s humanity and grace.  Many responded to my colleague Karen Tumulty’s gorgeous column on the way Mike’s faith ‘fueled and defined his involvement with politics,’ and animated his life. 

“President George Bush highlighted Mike’s role as a ‘key catalyst’ behind PEPFAR, the global AIDS initiative that has saved millions of lives, recalling that Mike urged: ‘If we can do this and we don’t, it will be a source of national shame.’ 

“Samantha Power, the USAID administrator, called Mike’s death ‘shattering news.’  He reminded us, she wrote, ‘that we are each agents in history who can do harm or good, be bystanders or upstanders. Mike did unforgettable good.’ 

“Of course, critics came out, too, pointing to what they called a mixed legacy at best, given Mike’s involvement in crafting the messaging that led to the Iraq War. 

“I can’t claim to have known Michael Gerson in full; I had the privilege of editing him for less than two years.  He and I didn’t talk about Iraq, and we probably would have disagreed on that and plenty else. But none of that mattered. 

“Here, I’ll turn to something my colleague Ruth Marcus said on NewsHour the day Mike died, about how principled people can vehemently disagree about all sorts of questions and still esteem and care for one another. 

“Mike believed, she said, that the path to the just society we all want ‘was to take the high road, to not belittle others, to not demean others, to not cast doubt on people.  You could disagree with people’s views without disagreeing with and undermining and attacking their motives and their honesty and decency.’”

There you have it — more tributes.

Mine remains this:  Michael Gerson displayed a particular ability to animate our thoughts in a solid direction, to emphasize the idea that people of goodwill and good intent could argue about points-of-view, but still respect each other.  And, perhaps even learn from another’s perspective.

Demonstrating this ability in the often-soiled world of politics requires strength and character.  Mike had both, even as he displayed to the world his genuine Christianity while rebuking those who departed from principles of faith. 

Finally, Gerson said one of his favorite lines was one he wrote for President Bush who was speaking at a prayer service three days after the 9-11 tragedy: 

“Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time.  Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end and the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.”

Good words at the time by Gerson.  Good words today as we look back on a life well lived before God.

THE TYPES OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN GOVERNMENT

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

As someone with too much time on hands, I tend to follow either of two pursuits:  First, golf, my favorite sport, or, second, thinking about public policy.

Well, there is another one – functioning as the vice president for garbage pick-up and lawn maintenance at the house where I live in Salem, Oregon.

For public policy, my thoughts have gone lately to the kinds of qualities I appreciate in those who hold elective positions.

This has not been motivated by anything I have read.  It’s just my independent thoughts, some of them gleaned during my 40 years of service in and around state government in Oregon.  A few of them were highlighted during the recent mid-term election.

So, with that election in the rearview mirror, at least mostly, here is my list of top credentials.

• An elected official who knows what he or she knows and what he or she doesn’t know.  [I remember several officials, especially in health care, who thought they knew every answer to every question, so only had to propose pieces of legislation, not work with those who cared about the issue as much as they did.]

• An elected official who practices a lost art in politics these days – listening.  [One of my partner in business put it this way:  God gave you two ears and one mouth, so spend twice as much listening as talking.]

• An elected official who stands on principles that got them elected, but does hold them in a closed fist, thus being willing to listen to the perspectives of others because “no one has the right answer to everything.”

• An elected official who, when there is not agreement on a direction on a particular policy bill, will work to find middle ground, which is often where the best solutions lie anyway.  And, if there is no clear middle ground, perhaps the best solution is not to pass anything.

• An elected official who will ask two questions now not often asked by those in government:  (1) Is a government program the best way to deal with this issue, and, if the answer is “yes,” (2) how can the program be designed to achieve its objectives in measurable form?

• An elected official who listens to anecdotes, but does not propose policy in respect to just those anecdotes, which may not reflect the accurate picture.

• And, an elected official who will value honesty above all else.

Thoughts such as these at least were in the back of my mind as I voted a few weeks ago.

I hope we see these kinds of credentials in action, not just in campaign promises.

A MEMORABLE WAY TO RECALL PAST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

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

Atlantic Magazine showed up this week with a thought-provoking story reflecting on two huge past human tragedies:  Slavery in America and the Holocaust in Germany.

Of course, those tragedies are separate, defined by location and specifics.  But, both indicate an incredible, foreboding reality:  Hate for a class of people – Blacks in America and Jews in Germany – has existed and could still exist.

For its December cover story, Atlantic staff writer Clint Smith — who has written a book about historical sites and memorials of slavery in America — spent time in Germany, visiting sites of the Holocaust and studying the debates around them.

He recounted how many Germans are making sure the Holocaust is not forgotten.

Smith’s reflections prompted me to remember a couple of my visits to Germany where, while I did not visit Holocaust sites, I found myself wondering whether German citizens reflected on the huge misdeeds of the Hitler era, or, if they did, how they did.

Today’s Germans had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but it was so horrific that I thought they must have views about it.

In an Atlantic interview, Smith said this:

“Like many people, I read books about the Holocaust in grade school.  I read Anne Frank’s diary and Elie Wiesel’s Night; I spent time with a lot of these narratives that gave me a small insight into what happened.  But I’m a big believer in the power of putting your body in the place where history happened.  It gives you a different sense of your own proximity to that history.  I think I felt that most at the Dachau concentration camp.

“I’ve been to plantations.  I’ve been inside of execution chambers.  I’ve walked the halls of death row.  I’ve been to a lot of places where death and violence are, and have been, enacted on people.

“But I’ve never experienced the chill in my body and in my spirit that I did when I was walking through the gas chamber at Dachau.  I was startled by how deeply I felt it in my body, how deeply unsettled I felt in my spirit. And then you realize how recent it was.  This was less than 80 years ago.”

Smith said that one of the most moving memorials he encountered was what he called “the stumbling stones.”  There are more than 90,000 brass stones spread across 30 different countries in Europe, and they’re typically placed in front of the homes, residences, synagogues, and schools where Jews and other groups were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, or where they last lived before they were sent to their deaths.

He talked with a Jewish woman who lived in a home that had two stumbling stones in front of it, and she said, “Can you imagine what it would be like if you had this for slavery in your hometown, in New Orleans?”

At that moment, Smith said he looked down at the stones and, in fact, imagined what it would be like in America if the stones were a memorial to slavery.

Entire streets, he said, would be filled with stones.

“I think about what it would be like if we did something commensurate with that here.  What would it be like if we had stumbling stones or markers in every place where enslaved people were sold or held or rendered captive?  What might it do to our collective understanding of our history?  Would we have such a distorted sense of what America has been and what it is if we were regularly reminded of what it has done?

“Markers and stumbling stones are not a panacea by any means.  But the thing about Germany is that these sites of memory are ubiquitous.  There are so many reminders, everywhere you turn, of what Germany did, that it becomes an indelible part of the national psyche.”

And, I say that’s good because one way to avoid repeating a horrific catastrophe like the Holocaust is to remember it!

Smith added a useful perspective for Americans.

“In the United States,” he said, “there are 41 million Black people in this country.  And, so you can’t simply build a memorial to slavery or put a wreath down once a year on Juneteenth and say, We did this terrible thing. We won’t do it again, without accounting for the material implications of what happened for the people who are right in front of you.

“Contrition without reparation would feel empty or incomplete.  Across the country, we see the manifestations of a lack of reparations in the pervasive inequality between Black and white people.”

For me, contrition and reparation are separate issues.  The latter is very controversial.  The former – contrition – should not be, especially if it can motivate beliefs and actions today.

Further, Smith said memorials to slavery in America do not have rely on government – or, perhaps, should not.

“There are examples of communities in the U.S. that are not waiting for the government to tell them that they should build a memorial or that they should create sites of public memory.  I think one of the most compelling is a group in Connecticut that’s doing a Witness Stones Project, based on the stumbling-stones project in Germany.

“Middle- and high-school students are placing stones to mark the spaces where enslaved people lived, worked, and worshiped.”

So, this bottom-line thought for all of us – one underlined for me on my trips to Germany:  Do not forget past misdeeds in any country. 

For Germany, it was the Holocaust and may it never happen again.

For us, it was slavery and may it never happen again.

MY EULOGY FOR WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST MICHAEL GERSON

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

I have chosen today to devote an entire blog to reprinting a story from the Washington Post this morning that conveyed sad news, the passing of a great columnist and a treasured human being, Michael Gerson.

It’s my way to eulogize Mr. Gerson.

I do so because he was one of my favorite columnists going these days, for at least a couple reasons:  First, he had a great way with words to convey the points he was making as a political analyst; and, second, he did so from his position as a genuine Christian.

So, I honor you today, Mr. Gerson, for your role in national affairs, your role in writing great words, and your role as a Christian.

Here is the Washington Post story.

Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush who helped craft messages of grief and resolve after 9/11, then explored conservative politics and faith as a Washington Post columnist writing on issues ranging from President Donald Trump’s disruptive grip on the GOP to his own struggles with depression, died November 17 at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington.  He was 58.

Gerson had been receiving treatment for cancer, said Peter Wehner, a longtime friend and former colleague.

After years of working as a writer for conservative and evangelical leaders, including Prison Fellowship Ministries founder and Watergate felon Charles Colson, Gerson joined the Bush campaign in 1999.  Gerson, an evangelical Christian, wrote with an eye toward religious and moral imagery, and that approach melded well with Bush’s personality as a leader open about his own Christian faith.

Gerson’s work and bonds with Bush drew comparisons to other powerful White House partnerships, such as John F. Kennedy’s with his speechwriter and adviser Ted Sorensen and Ronald Reagan’s with aide Peggy Noonan.

Conservative commentator William Kristol told The Post in 2006 that Gerson “might have had more influence than any other White House staffer who wasn’t chief of staff or national security adviser” in modern times.

“Mike was substantively influential, not just a wordsmith, not just a crafter of language for other people’s policies, but he influenced policy itself,” Kristol said.

As an impromptu speaker, Bush had a reputation for gaffes and mangling phrases, but Gerson provided him with memorable flights of oratory, such as the pledge to end “the soft bigotry of low expectations” in the education of low-income and minority students and the description of democracy — in Bush’s first inaugural address — as a “seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations.”

As a Bush confidant and head of the speechwriting team, he also encouraged such memorable turns of phrase as “axis of evil,” which Bush used to explain the administration’s hawkish posture as it started long and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the chaotic months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Gerson became the key craftsman articulating what became known as the “Bush Doctrine” — which advocated preemptive strikes against potential terrorists and other perceived threats. With his team of writers, he began shaping Bush’s tone and tenor, including addresses at Washington National Cathedral on September 14 and to a joint session of Congress on September 20.

“Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution,” Bush told Congress.  “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”

Gerson and Bush found common ground in the use of religious themes of higher power and light vs. darkness, seeing such rhetoric as part of other historic struggles, including the abolitionist movement. “It is a real mistake to try to secularize American political discourse,”  Gerson told NPR in 2006.  “It removes one of the primary sources of visions of justice in American history.”

Before the State of the Union address in January 2002, Bush’s speechwriters were instructed to link Iraq to the wider battles against terrorism — a sign that Bush and his inner circle, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, were gearing up for war.

Speechwriter David Frum said he came up with “axis of hatred” to describe Iraq, North Korea and Iran (even though Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was a foe of leaders in Tehran).  Gerson tweaked it to “axis of evil” to make it sound more “theological” — a battle between good and evil — Frum wrote in his 2003 book on Bush, “The Right Man.”

“I thought that was terrific,” Frum wrote about Gerson’s change.  “It was the sort of language President Bush used.”

Gerson also had a hand in pushing the Bush White House’s false assertions about Iraq — including debunked allegations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — that would seek to justify the 2003 invasion. More than eight years of war claimed the lives of about 4,500 U.S. service personnel and more than 100,000 Iraqi insurgents and civilians, according to monitoring groups. Some place the number of Iraqi deaths far higher.

Gerson never publicly expressed regrets for having helped sell the Iraq War.  His 2007 memoir, “Heroic Conservatism,” declared that U.S. leadership is essential to fight terrorism and global poverty and disease. But he mostly sidestepped the many ethical and legal questions arising from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and such consequences as the waterboarding of prisoners, renditions to Guantánamo Bay and the thousands of civilian casualties.

After a heart attack in December 2004, Mr. Gerson stepped back from the stresses of speechwriting and took on policy advisory roles full time.  He often lamented that the Bush administration’s humanitarian initiatives, such as AIDS prevention in Africa, became footnotes in a world changed by 9/11.

Gerson left the White House in 2006, with Bush’s backing, to pursue outside policy work and writing. The next year, he joined The Post and wrote twice-weekly columns that expanded his reach as a conservative distressed by populism and the politics of anger, and animated by the conviction that religion and social activism are powerful partners.

“That’s a different kind of conservatism,” he told the PBS show “Religion and Ethics Newsweekly” in 2007, “a conservatism of the common good that argues that we need to orient our policies towards people that might not even vote for us.”

Gerson’s columns for The Post took plenty of shots at President Barack Obama during his two terms, calling his foreign policy undisciplined and the Affordable Care Act — and its bid to move the nation toward universal health care — shambolic.

With the rise of Trump, however, Gerson found himself outside looking in. He bemoaned how many in the Republican Party — including fellow evangelical Christians — shifted allegiances to Trump despite his record of lies, infidelities and racist remarks.  But he acknowledged that, for the moment, he was on the weaker side as a Trump critic.

“It has been said that when you choose your community, you choose your character,” Gerson wrote in an essay for The Post this past September 1. “Strangely, evangelicals have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue.”

My conclusion that, in the end, Michael Gerson chose well.

Error! Filename not specified.