Sherlock Holmes for President

Just because following politics and watching the news are not high on my “to do” list — in fact most days they aren’t even on it — that doesn’t mean I don’t love America. I absolutely do. My answer to people who thank me for my service when they learn I’m a veteran is, “I would do it again.” And I would.

My father drove me from our little town to St. Louis when I began my tour of duty. Vietnam was on his mind, and a little on mine, and we discussed it briefly. A few of my friends had already been there, so when he asked me about it I said simply that I would be the very best soldier I could be and serve as needed.

The Army was good for me in many ways, and one of those is the appreciation I gained for America. I care about this country by choice, not just by birth. I know the history, and I can pass the citizenship test. I have met at least one senator and at least two congressmen — and even a Miss America. So I am well aware that being in a national leadership role in the USA is an incredibly difficult job.

And with that preamble, here is why I think Sherlock Holmes could win if he ran for president of the United States.

Minor details

Yes, there are a couple of minor details that could obviate Sherlock’s candidacy. First, he’s British, not American. Second, and perhaps more to the point, he is a fictional character rather than a living being.

Now I can imagine a few of you saying sarcastically, “So? A couple of people who have gotten through some recent primaries seem pretty fictional to me.” I get it, which is why it might still be possible to get Sherlock on the ballot.

Passing over all that, there is a specific reason why I think Sherlock could win: he is the greatest detective of all time, and there doesn’t seem to be a problem he can’t solve.

And, if you listen to social media and even the traditional press, we have a lot of problems that need solving. That’s what Sherlock does.

Take Iran, for instance. That is a problem (I’ve heard it said) to which our current administration has no solution.

When friends would tell me Iran is a problem the president can’t solve, I would ask, “What’s your solution?” No one has had one, other than to obliterate Iran altogether. So that is not really a solution.

Here is the real “minor detail” we miss in such discussions….

Iran is not a “problem to be solved”

The war with Iran is very real, very expensive, and (like all wars) deadly. What it is not is a “problem to be solved.” Allow me to explain.

Life has always been challenging. To know that, just pick up a Bible or any other ancient text and read about “life back then.” You’ll see that the questions we ask about “how do I live” are neither unique to us nor new. What has changed over the past century or so is the way many people view life and what that changes about navigating it.

This shift has been aided, if not caused, by industrialization and invention. All of that has accelerated more and more rapidly, and advancements have often been accompanied by messaging that touts the new thing as something that will “make life easier.”

Certainly it is easier to plow a field with a tractor pulling the blades than it is walking behind a team of oxen. It is easier to drive a car to visit family than it is to take a buggy. Trains made distance travel faster, and airplanes even faster. These inventions are all good.

One result of all this is that our response to many of the issues we face in life is that these are simply “problems to be solved.” Too many of us no longer think of the life before us as pages on which we can write our story, a canvas on which we can paint a beautiful picture, or an instrument on which we can play living music that will inspire others. We think of life as a series of extremely difficult problems for which we must find a solution.

The people who are suffering from that the most today are those who are in their teens and twenties. Anxiety and depression rates in those age groups have risen dramatically over the last ten years. And, ironically, the advancement of technology has contributed to that condition rather than reducing it.

How do we think about these things?

The more means we have at our disposal to “solve” what we think of as a “problem,” the more difficult the problem becomes. Does that seem backward to you? Think of it like this: when I play golf I have at my disposal 14 clubs I can use to advance the ball toward the target. Though some of those are specialized, like a driver or a putter, I can use any one of them on any shot. I can drive with my putter and putt with my driver if I like.

But if I only carry one club, rather than 14 (the maximum allowed), I don’t have to worry about whether I should hit this club or that club, etc.

The internet, and even AI, are very useful for many things. Finding “solutions” to my life’s “problems” is not one of them. Don’t believe me? Ask several AI programs what America should do about Iran.

First we need to think about the phenomena and challenges of life not as problems with solutions, but as opportunities to make something new out of ourselves, not for ourselves.

There is more to unpack about all of this, and I’ll do that next week. For now, though, begin thinking more about challenges — and life in general — as an opportunity to do good. As creators know, we cannot “master the material.” What we can do is cooperate with it. As Dorothy L. Sayers wrote, “whosoever will be a lord of life, let him be its servant.”

Do good! It’s in you.