A few days back on Twitter, Ben Carson invited people to Make Common Sense Common Again, with the hashtag NewyearsresolutionIn5words.
Of course the return responses varied widely. There were mocking retweets. Some even arguing his catchphrase was four words in a five word slogan.
Seriously? This is the problem with so many today. They look to criticize, respond with belligerent sarcasm, and spew words of scorn and disdain, to get some excitement on social media to pat their own desperate realm of an online presence. We seem to be more ignorant instead of informed.
Why would Dr. Carson desire a collective 2016 resolution to make common sense common again? Remember he is seeking the office of president for the United States.
It is nonsensical to operate a federal government accumulating nonsensical debt. For every dollar our federal government spends, 40 cents is borrowed. How long would your household last with such spending and borrowing habits? U.S. politicians have been in a borrowing frenzy since the days of Ronald Reagan. Is it time for some common sense solutions?
It is ridiculous ignorance or denial to refute a real enemy is before us, and has no desire to stay localized in the Middle East. It is common sense to state: “Our country faces grave national security threats. We must act boldly and decisively to protect American citizens from terrorists at home and abroad. We can no longer dawdle while ISIS continues to persecute Christians, enslave young girls, oppress civil societies and perpetrate terrorist attacks against the free world. We must destroy their caliphate and prevent their terrorists from infiltrating our homeland” (Dr. Carson has stated).
It is absolutely absurd to think that because a candidate hasn’t been Secretary of State or a U.S. Senator privy to foreign intelligence is somehow disqualified to handle the overseas issues. Lincoln wasn’t privy to all of the domestic and foreign entanglements surrounding the division in our country. He wisely, patiently, and boldly governed. And he was soft spoken, with a quirky sense of humor. Think of that.
But here is our dilemma. We get giggly about and elect people based upon America’s five-hour-a night television habit. We have been electing people based upon the “first” or the “different.” It is based upon who looks good, sounds good, and who has the image. We give opportunists a relatively free pass and throw under the bus individuals who have time, experience, and calm judgment indelibly planted in their nature and character.
In a morally confused and literally bankrupt America, I think it is common sense to elect someone who knows how to govern his or her own house. I think it is common sense to elect someone who understands—think of past presidential and national predicaments—that a house a divided against itself cannot stand. I think it is common sense to elect someone who discerns that domestically and abroad, people are hungering for healing and inspiration in their personal lives and in their families.
I think it is common sense to elect a man who has spiritual strength and not a boisterous ostentatious stage personality. Speaking of the stage, it is common sense to get rid of the debates. They’re a joke, an embarrassment, and are bred by desperate media.
If people of media were really objective and have the nation’s best interest they will give each candidate, at a fair price, equal time to present themselves by addressing their views and hopes to the people in more sincere and unique formats.
For example, one idea for a different format is that they have several 30 minute to 1-hour segments (no commercials). Each segment would cover the issues and topics relevant for the time. For example, one segment could show the candidate asking questions and seeking advice and counsel from health care leaders. Another segment could place the candidate with the leaders of both House of Representatives and the Senate (from both parties). The candidate could address budget, regulations, debt, taxes, etc. One segment could show them in counsel and discussion with some of our military leaders discussing America’s role abroad, at home, and the military’s purpose and dissemination of resources. Another segment would put the candidate in their home to tell their story, to introduce their family, their history, etc…One segment could be with citizens of all economic classes and a selection of people from industries and agriculture and from entertainment and small business. They could talk jobs, living experiences, accountability, and the role of government.
Away with the debates. Away with the canned presentations and responses. The candidate would be responsible to lead the discussions, ask questions, and respond to the people’s troubles, problems, and questions. This form of dialogue would give viewers a chance to see more genuineness and discern leadership characteristics. And yes, these segments would take the place of many of the shallow shows now being offered.
This is common sense. This is brings citizenship and responsibility closer to the people—which is Ben Carson’s mantra.
I think a return to common sense is a timely New Year’s resolution, one that should be ahead of a gym membership.