Well, the presidential election in the United States is almost here. Thank goodness. If I get one more political text, robocall, or request for a donation from a politician, I think I will write "none of the above" on the ballot. This might make me feel good, but I admit it serves no purpose.
Unlike the British, we do not have governments that can implode, and general elections can be called anytime to elect a new head of government. Our process of electing a president every four years is enough. In fairness, the British are actually very wise. They do not abuse this right to call elections, and they limit the electioneering period to weeks, not years.
I have friends who are Democrats and friends who are Republicans. Although I have to confess, I do not have them together in the same room for dinner for fear there will be disharmony if not mayhem. The one thing that most of the proponents of both parties will admit when not imbibing is that in a country of more than 325,000,000 people, surely there must be two people who would be better candidates. As I have mentioned in another blog, everyone wants to complain about politicians, but few of the complainers want to run for office. After all, if you are sane, why would you want to run for office so you can be abused?
Not only do I hear from my friends on both sides of the aisle about their presidential candidate preference, but I am also repeatedly told that their candidate has terrific characteristics. When pressed, however, they usually cannot present, in a coherent fashion, what those characteristics are other than providing me with a fifteen-second sound bite they have heard on television or a one line text they have read on social media.
It has occurred to me that we need another candidate. I realize that it is a little late for a write-in campaign, but hope springs eternal. What one characteristic would this candidate have? Sarcasm? Great speaking ability: so eloquent that they can convince me to give my money to the government and let it spend it wisely? Glibness? The inability to stay on point during a conversation? An ability to constantly change positions? (All politicians suffer from these.)
None of these would be on my list. So, I felt I had to come up with one characteristic, above all others, that a write-in candidate should have. I came up with a solution yesterday while reading an issue of Scientific American. A recent issue of the publication included articles on
Enlisting Microbes to Break Down ‘Forever Chemicals,’
Drastic Molecular Shifts in People’s 40s and 60s Might Explain Age-Related Health Changes, and
Komodo Dragons’ Nightmare Iron-Tipped Teeth are a Reptilian First.
All well-educated people will recognize these as interesting topics and that only a leading publication would include these types of articles. So, there is no need for me to justify that Scientific American is a fount of wisdom and perspicacity. (I realize I should not use a word like perspicacity, but it seemed appropriate for a publication like Scientific American. Grammarly did indicate that even a knowledgeable reader would not know what this word means.)
I am not relying on the current issue of Scientific American to find the proper candidate characteristic. Instead, I am relying on an older issue. I was reading issue one, volume one, from 1845 and found an interesting article on the first page that focused on the perfect characteristic for a candidate. I quote from page one:
One of the truck horses of Mr. Hinds was unloosed for a minute or two, from the trucks, a few days since, in the city, when, on the driver looking for him, behold he was missing. It was an hour or two, before the driver could discover his whereabout. It was very mysterious, he being a steady beast, and not subject to flights of fancy. However, he was at last found in the smith’s shop, where he was wont to have his shoes repaired. The smith said the horse entered and took the usual stand for shoeing. Upon examining his feet, he found one shoe off, which he supplied. That horse is a sensible beast.
The animal had horse sense, which is an excellent characteristic for a candidate.
Before I get any emails, I know that the term horse sense predates 1845 and readily admit that my example was not the first place the concept of horse sense arose. For example, see,
The phrase originally came from the early 19th century near the town of Westward Ho! in Devon, England. It first appeared in the 1805 novel “Forsaken; Love’s Battle for Heart” by English romantic novelist Evelyn Malcolm. The sentence reads as follows: “Lud, Bill Perkins has horse sense.“
Author James Paulding also used the idiom in his 1832 novel “Westward Ho!”: “I’m for Dangerfield, though he hasn’t got a white pocket-handkerchief, and though he can’t play the piano. He’s a man of good strong horse sense.”
How wonderful it would be, however, if we could get a candidate who has horse sense:
a candidate who understands how to handle the basics of life without fanfare and wordiness,
a candidate who understands that a national debt that is in the trillions of dollars is a problem,
a candidate who cares about rising food prices and shoes on people’s feet, and
a candidate who thinks "ethical" is not a buzz word.
If anyone knows of a candidate that has horse sense, let me know. I will run their name in my blog. Maybe it is not too late to start a write-in effort.
If you have not read the blog that describes the "However View," click here.
