There is an awful lot of talk (and a lot of ‘awful’ talk) lately about ‘governing’ by/for/with “Common Sense.” As a matter of fact, it might have been the de facto mantra of the Make America Great Again movement. That could be great and fairly easy if “Common Sense” was an objective and universally-defined concept. The reality is that the term is very subjectively in the “eye of the beholder” much like the concepts of love, beauty, art, peace and quiet.
The LACK of Common Sense is certainly more obvious to identify and more easily labelled. Americans have recently completed enduring a total absence of Common Sense for the last four years. Maybe the previous administration had “progressive” ideals, pipe dreams, hypothetical potential, theoretical possibilities or genie-in-the-bottle wishes but nothing even remotely within realm of “Common Sense.”
As I see it, Common Sense may be antithetical to Human Nature. Our Human Nature seems to be most like that stage of development that has been called the “terrible threes” (used to be “twos). Namely, everybody wants what they want at all times for all things. Luckily, most everyone learns to outgrow that phase with the help of family, friends, schools, church, work, teams and society in general. This ‘maturing’ process enables people to become “adults” and live with and among each other in a reasonably “civilized” fashion. The “Bell Curve” allows for a wide variety of implementations under the definitions of the words, “adult,” “mature,” “civilized,” and “society.”
I view “power” as the culprit that reverts “grown-ups” back into the childhood stages of lost: reasonable compromise (Taking ‘Turns’); the spirit of cooperation (“Mine!”); a willingness to collaborate (“I’m Taking My Ball and Going Home”); and most importantly, using sensible actions for the ‘good’ of the majority (like having vanilla ice cream with chocolate birthday cake and not, rum raisin).
So, why did this campaign slogan resonate so strongly with American electorate? First of all, I think that Common Sense might be considered our ‘shared’ ability? You know, the reasoning style of the “people” and so, even a rich and famous man like Donald Trump, can ‘connect’ as a “Man of the People.” Much like “slang” is more commonly-used than the “King’s English,” “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” is much more palatable for the vast majority of people than “I Can Not Receive Any Satisfaction.” So, if a Leader proposes an idea that ANYONE could have thought (like those late-night TV products which seem so obvious), it gets accepted much easier than the obtuse, esoteric ones (like funding Sudanese tribal war dances).
Secondly, much like pop love songs, romance novels, action movies, reality television, T-Shirts and ‘fast food,’ Common Sense becomes the lowest common denominator for about 75%-80% of all of us and that usually is enough to get “acceptance/adoption.” The remain 20%-25% can kick & scream, bitch & moan and protest from now until the “cows come home” BUT to truly little or meaningful avail. So, any savvy salesperson (of which we are ALL trying to be in our own way for our own priorities) will take the lowest-hanging ‘fruit’ while promising everyone else the ‘moon.’
When it comes to ‘delivering’ Common Sense, however, it is a little more like “The Digital PayPal is in the Ether” (“the check is in the mail”); or “The A.I. is Composing It” (“it’s in typing”); or “Of Course I’ll Wear a Condom” (“of course I’ll wear a condom”)—SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE! Why then is Common Sense so difficult to achieve if it so “common?” Simply because very few people can/will agree on what any one idea exactly means.
For example, my daughter recently applied to college…20 of them! We thought this was a very “sensible” approach due to the variety of her interests and her desire for “merit scholarships.” To us, the $75 average application fee was a solid, sound and sensible return-on-‘investment’ strategy. Others thought that we were very impractical and as foolish as for tax-payers to ‘fund’ death-row inmates to have transgender surgery. 5-7 applications would have served us just as well according to many other ‘common sensors.’ So, what is the one and only Common Sense approach? Care to stake America’s future on such decisions?
I think we could definitely all take a lesson from the Professional Golfers’ Association (the PGA). Maybe if we formed the Professional Leaders’ Association (the PLA), America would have a better level of Common Sense Leadership. Those of us optimists are hoping that the current Administration will usher in a totally new level of that particular ‘skill.’ First of all, Pro Golfers (both Men and Ladies), conduct themselves is a very polite and mannerly way; lesson #1 for all politicians.
Secondly, the Honor System, Self-Policing and Rules of Etiquette are incredibly admirable. Compare those factors to the behaviors of most politicians and you will understand why they do not qualify in my definition of “Leaders:” I categorize most as “managers” and that is me being kind and generous. If all of the Congressional, Courts and Executive Branch personnel had to meet Leadership “standards” (established by aforementioned “Association”) renewable every year, The “People” might have more confidence and trust in our Governmental officials? As previously mentioned, if these values conflict so much with basic Human Nature, how do the Golfers manage it?
Why is it that ‘belonging’ to an “Association” can make such a difference? There is certainly no lack of money and fame among the highest ‘rung’ of Professional Golfers. They are at the top of their careers (PGA Tour is the step ‘up’ from the Korn-Ferry tour) much the same way that Federal Employees are above and beyond local and state governmental employees in career status. The difference may be that The PGA requires that weekly/yearly objective (i.e., “scores”) performance to keep one’s “card.” Politicians, on the other hand, keep their “seats” based on “popularity,” a much more subjective and un-accountable method. Politicians in many instances use over/under information to overwhelm and manipulate the “common” person; all the while holding themselves up to some special and exclusive position above/different than the “sense” that Humanity possesses/utilizes.
Let us consider the golfing analogy a little further shall we? Much like politics, a golf swing is extremely complicated. So much so, in fact, it cannot be thought through using the intellect of the mind, it must rely on something called, “muscle memory.” This might be called doing the “right thing” and if NOT done, the golfer knows immediately as his shot will tell him/her exactly what was done wrong/imperfectly. When it comes to governing, politicians should have the instinct/intuition (not only thinking which can be deceitful) about what is the “right thing” that he/she was elected to accomplish. I just do not see the leverage, the balance or the precision among the professional politicians that I see among the professional golfers. I see no such corresponding requirements for politicians; maybe because they do NOT have to belong to any ‘governing’-body “Association” to report on their elected “responsibilities?” Nor are they ever judged by any measure of ‘production,’ just “promises,” and seldom, if ever, ‘penalized/punished’ for any of those “unkept!”
Another thing is that the golfers have to prove their performance each week in a diversity of locations over a four-day ‘grind.’ One of the criticisms of the recent Presidential election is that many of the politicians have totally lost touch with the people because they had not gotten out among them to know what they were ‘experiencing.’ Compare that with the gallery hoards who follow the golfers around the 18 holes of the course.
Furthermore, although not every player is equally proficient with each aspect of their ‘job’ (Putting, Driving, Chipping, Pitching, etc.), they are still required to make all of the shots themselves and can only “delegate” advice from a caddy. They practice tirelessly and must know the right tools to use by knowing themselves through all of those hours of practice hitting thousands of balls. They have a wide variety of branded tools (clubs and balls) at their disposal but have only one available to them at-a-time. Some say that golf is a game only for the rich; any more so than the US Senate? The difference is that one has a “sanctioning” body, and one does not!