Given the enormous chasm between Left and Right on issues that would seem to fit the definition of common sense, we’d have to conclude that it is either in very short supply or, more likely, has been deemed irrelevant by folks who’d rather argue than collaborate.

Maybe a few clear-headed Republicans and Democrats could put their heads together and reach tacit agreement on a few of these, such that we can devote our time, attention, and political capital to matters on which we have major disagreement. Some examples:

First things first — on the matter of nuclear-armed terrorists: The undebatable commonsense stance is that our world cannot permit terrorists — be they rogue nations, proxies of rogue nations, fanatical religious sects, cartels, whatever — to have weapons that could end civilization.

Iran is the poster child for world terrorism. As just one example, Iran is the country that sponsored the barbaric murder, rape, torture of thousands in the 10/7/23 premeditated attack by Hamas on Israeli attendees at a music festival. We’ve learned the hard way that terrorist brutality has no limits. Terrorists display not a shred of remorse for their inhuman behavior — the more harm and pain they inflict, the happier they are.

While we have plenty of reasons to dislike Iran, the nonstarter is its relentless push to acquire both nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile delivery systems to deploy such weapons against any target in the world (including our own USA).

So please, leftists, let’s drop the anguished hand-wringing about our conflict with Iran being an “illegal war.” If our president’s initiative to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran is successful, the entire world will be forever in his debt. And even if not 100% successful, let’s acknowledge his courage in taking on the challenge that so many of his predecessors were afraid to touch.

On mail-in voting: Election security is a linchpin of democratic processes. The Constitution assigns responsibility for election management to the states, not the federal government, and there’s plenty of room for debate on specifics. But surely we can agree with the commonsense notion that bulk mailing of ballots to a list of registered voters’ addresses (information that is often inaccurate or outdated in our mobile society) is, in effect, an engraved invitation to voting fraud.

Think about it: bulk-mailed ballots have zero chain of custody. Truckloads of identifiable ballots disappear into the abyss of the vast USPS system, and then, weeks later, reappear as filled-in votes. But who actually filled in and signed those ballots is unknowable, as is what happened to the many ballots not returned.

By comparison, in-person voting (once the American standard) provides a clear chain of ballot custody: the registered voter shows up at the polls, is positively identified, and casts a vote that is immediately recorded and executed.

Who truly believes that those two processes are remotely equivalent in terms of election security? And are we confident that no one is willing to exploit the obvious vulnerabilities of bulk-mail balloting? Mail-in voting is popular and is well-executed in many states, but it requires rigorous guardrails.

On the White House ballroom: Here’s a commonsense view, respected and acted upon by presidents ever since the White House was first occupied two centuries ago: as the multi-year resident, chosen by the electorate, the president is ideally positioned to address matters of White House use and care, including the need for renovation. Why second-guess the president’s actions in doing so?

The White House is a cultural and political center of gravity for the free world. Throughout the year, the president and first lady host major events there, often involving foreign dignitaries. These events require full availability of a spacious and functional venue, a setting more appropriate than the White House South Lawn under a tent for protection from inclement weather.

President Donald Trump recognized the need, conceptualized a major East Wing upgrade, found private money to fund it, and immediately got to work — all to a cacophony of apoplectic criticism (e.g., “Who does he think he is? That’s OUR house, not his!”). And let’s be clear — the objections are driven not by disagreement with his judgment on the matter, they’re driven by political animosity and outrage over everything he does.

Here’s the political tell: Without common sense on its side, Trump’s political opponents reverted quickly to their favorite fallback maneuver — finding a sympathetic judge to declare his action illegal. This sensible project is now sidelined while our tax money is being spent on a senseless legal battle.

On birthright citizenship. I’d venture that nobody — NOBODY — thinks it’s good for our country to give away U.S. citizenship to any child born who happens to be born on U.S. soil, even if his/her birth mother is here illegally, or if she came here for the sole intent of “making” a citizen (via birth tourism). Yes, there are Democrats enticed by the notion of producing a new generation of Democrat voters; they feign agreement, but surely even they have second thoughts about the advisability of batch-processing a future cadre of CCP-produced American citizens and voters via the well-organized birth tourism already hatched and thriving in China.

The commonsense explanation here is that we are currently stuck with an unintended constitutional constraint, rooted in an understandable lack of foresight by those who wrote and approved the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 160 years ago. In time, a constitutional amendment is in order; in the interim, both sides should set aside their partisanship and collaborate (with judiciary support as needed) on an interim legislative correction.

On secure borders: The undebatable commonsense position is that controlled borders are essential. Who thinks a nation can protect its citizenry, its government, its treasures, and its future without controlling who can enter our country? Again, the answer is no one.

In my view (a view widely held, I believe, by a majority of Americans), the Biden administration’s action to throw open our borders for four years and to encourage — and in some cases to actually facilitate — massive illegal immigration into the United States stands as the single greatest presidential blunder in American history. And while Biden’s successor has now slammed that door shut, the consequences of tens of millions of unvetted illegal entrants in our midst are not yet fully resolved.

And so, perhaps we’ve achieved consensus on the commonsense position that a safe, secure America requires secure borders. But having crossed that bridge, can we not begin to collaborate on the challenge of resolving the very real residual problem of illegal immigrants now in our midst?

One might think that politicians, even Democrats who’d insisted for years that illegal entry into our country should not be allowed (Clintons, Obama, Schumer, among many others) would acknowledge that the fix we’re in today is due to their party’s malpractice, and support full cooperation with the current administration’s efforts to handle it.

Evidently not yet. So far, “F**K ICE” seems to be all that their side has to offer. We must do better.