They say that common sense
is uncommon. This is certainly true with
respect to politics. As a result,
whenever a politician touts a proposal as “common sense,” we must brace
ourselves for something that is probably wrong-headed. To date, the Obama administration has not
disappointed.
But let me start with
something different. This summer, when I
was teaching about social class differences, I explained that research
demonstrates that spending more money on education does not improve the outcomes. There is, in fact, no correlation between
school funding and student performance.
I went on to explain that almost
no one wants to believe this. Ordinary
folks regard the opposite conclusion as common sense. Obviously if we pay teachers more, reduce the
number of students per class, and introduce additional computers, students will
learn more.
Except that they don’t. We have spent trillions of dollars more on schools
than when I was a child with negligible impact.
If anything, achievement scores have gone down. Certainly minority students have not caught
up with majority students.
What the research shows is that
parental attitudes count for more.
Hence, when parents value education, their children usually do. Schools have less impact than we desire because
the reverse is also true. The only
exception, and it is a small one, is that peers can influence one another.
As a consequence, magnet
schools don’t work, bussing didn’t work, and Head Start hasn’t worked. But who believes this? And why not?
Clearly, because we want them to work! When we have a problem, we wish to do something
about it. We are not willing to sit
around allowing it to fester.
And so when someone says
that he has an answer, we listen. We
then allow our good intentions to substitute for concrete results. Instead of checking to see whether a program
has previously succeeded, we are persuaded by rosy pictures of what is supposed
to happen.
Nowadays we see this when
Bernie Sanders promises socialistic extravagance. Nowhere on this planet has socialism ever
worked. It has always delivered less
than expected. The young do not know
this, however, because they have not been paying attention.
The same tendency exists
among conservatives. When Richard Nixon
told the nation he would end inflation by introducing price controls, his
partisans wanted to believe. This
strategy has never succeeded—including in ancient Rome—but who among them knew
history?
We see this predisposition
today when the poor agitate for a higher minimum wage. Many of them would lose their jobs, but they
are convinced it won’t be them. Nor will
inflation nibble away at whatever benefits they receive. After all, it is common sense that higher
wages can buy more things.
And then, there is gun
control. Of course, it is common sense
that if we take guns out of the hands of terrorists, fewer people will be
massacred. Conservatives protest that it
is people who kill people. Still, they
do so more effectively with assault weapons.
So let us identify these individuals and deny them the opportunity.
Doesn’t President Obama tell
us over and over again that he merely wants “common sense” gun legislation? Doesn’t he imply that anyone who disagrees
has no sense? Those mean spirited
members of the National Rifle Association are so enamored of their guns and
Bibles that they cannot see straight.
But what about the fact that
gun control has not worked in Chicago, or France, or, for that matter,
anywhere? And what about the data showing
that an earlier assault rifle ban in the U.S. did not reduce crime? This evidence apparently means nothing. Since it goes against common sense, it has to
be wrong.
Will this inclination to go
with our gut feelings change any time soon?
I doubt it. The politicians also doubt
it. Bernie Sanders went a long way with
his version of common sense. So have
Hillary and Donald. Millions of people will
therefore continue to believe what they want, while the rest of us pay the
penalty.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment