A SHOW OF HANDS WITHOUT A SHOW OF HANDS  BY DAVE MUNDY:

 

A show of hands, without a show of hands

Jan. 28, 1998

"Ah, consensus ... the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get any agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner, 'I stand for consensus?'"

— Margaret Thatcher

It's the newest "in" word in our language, and I have to admit, since I went along with the consensus on it, I've become much enamored of the word.

"Consensus."

Let's see if we can come to a consensus on this. The consensus is, I rate a Charles Barkley-type salary. Sounds like we have a consensus there.

See how easy it is?

"Consensus" is kind of like a show of hands, without the show of hands. It's like a vote of the full committee, without the full committee casting a vote. And it's how we seem to be doing a lot of business nowadays.

Consensus hastens the process and helps end the bickering. Why spend all that time arguing, for example, what color to paint your club's booth at the next Rice Harvest Festival when "consensus" says it ought to be purple? The blues and the greens and the reds all have their supporters, but they'll back purple if it means that blue or green or red don't get picked.

That's an important point; consensus helps us all get along.

With consensus, old Obstinate Joe won't trudge sullenly away from the next committee meeting, fuming because his pet idea got voted down; instead, he'll grumble a little, but his feelings are assuaged because he did, after all, manage to help push through a less-offensive idea.

There are, admittedly, a lot of concepts on which we can certainly share consensus. The IRS should be abolished. Government should be reduced, except for those programs which benefit us personally. The sky is often blue, the space station Mir is a joke, and the Denver Broncos won the Super Bowl.

Problem is, "consensus" differs from "democracy." Last I checked, our Constitution pretty much says we operate as a democratic republic.

In a democracy, you debate, and you vote. The majority rules. Under consensus, someone decides what most of those present would support, declares it so, and that's that. There's no vote.

The drawback to using consensus to decide weighty issues is the fact that those who stand in opposition to the majority don't get heard — there's no bickering allowed, since it's obvious the majority don't feel that way.

While it certainly saves time and argument, that's also a drawback. Consensus, for example, said the Titanic couldn't sink; a very small minority argued that it was dangerously short on lifeboats.

The consensus in Germany, 1939, was that Jews were sub-human and that Aryans were destined to rule the world. The minority didn't get much of a chance to voice its views there, either.

We need to watch out for "consensus building" and other slick terms being bandied about in government nowadays. Give me lengthy argument and a vote; at least that way, we know what all the issues are.

Even when consensus is favorable, it doesn't always work.

My consensus that I rate a Barkley-sized salary, for example, doesn't carry much weight when the consensus in the boss's office is different.