A moment of truth in America

KENNETT, Mo. -- America has arrived at a moment that many political scientists believe is one to be avoided if at all possible in a democracy, when the elected representatives of the people are no longer able to determine the true thoughts of the governed and when this group itself cannot reach a reasonable consensus. I'm speaking, of course, on what has recently been called "the second, and most important, point of U.S. foreign policy," which could perhaps more reasonably be called the wisest course of action to be taken against a regime (Iraq) that intends to pursue policies of mass destruction against its enemies.

Perhaps the lone uncertainty is the fact the United States is the enemy of Iraq, although probably not its only one in light of the continuously ongoing conflict between the Muslim and Israeli worlds, neither one of which includes the American civilization.

America's present policies toward the Islamic threat provided by Saddam Hussein's government were unquestionably triggered by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, since prior to that time our elected leaders has been content to label Iraq as merely a potential threat to world peace and not today's appellation of an immediate danger to the United States. Sometime between Sept. 11, 2001, and George W. Bush's State of the Union address last month, our leaders decided Iraq's presence in the world constituted the nation's most serious problem foreign or domestic, and called for immediate responses that were designed to end, once and for all, attempts to export harm to Americans and their closest allies.

Responses to this newly founded priority came sooner than usual in a democracy such as ours, as witness the decade-long incubation period required of the domestic Vietnam protests. The punctuality of today's protests can perhaps be traced to a number of factors including the struggle for control of Afghanistan as the United States sought to eradicate both the Taliban and the contract terrorist Osama bin Laden. There was really never any doubt about the outcome of which side would prevail in that part of the world, and so any public resistance to war was no more than a hoarse whisper. On the other hand, our long acquaintanceship with Saddam Hussein, which began with the father of our incumbent president, was a familiar story with its disappointing ending of letting the tyrant off the hook.

Contention that universal political party agreement on both domestic and foreign issues will not hold fast in the present environment is valid for a number of reasons. After last November, the Republicans were more in control of Washington than they had been since the first Reagan term and felt freer to exercise initiatives that might not fit the description of bipartisan. Democrats, on the other hand, were left so bereft of power after the last election that they felt obliged to disagree with the programs advanced by a president who had gained popularity during one of the nation's darkest moments.

Frankly, it would be difficult to separate the innocent from the suspect in a crowd like this.

Sometimes the elitism of decision-making is defended on the ground that the elite are enacting decisions passively supported by the masses, whose tolerance is proof of an underlying consensus in society. But Americans' nonparticipation in elections is a result of hopelessness rather than approval. Frankly, I believe Americans have never revolted violently nor reacted at the polls because they felt subservient to the system.

I also believe that despite the potential for horrendous acts of retribution, the possibility of thousands of body bags returning to our shores and the expected contempt of even our allies as we have sought unified Iraqi policies, most Americans feel a helplessness that often accompanies self-doubt and even political impotence. Thinking citizens still remember when both parties arranged for intervening in Vietnam in the 1950s and 1960s, and both promised to get out in 1968, leaving the protesters without a scintilla of political strength in that ongoing debate. By fiscal year 1985, both parties were agreeing on a $297 billion arms bill.

Adequate information for the electorate is a precondition for any kind of action, whether electoral or demonstrative, to affect national policy. Thus opponents of the present U.S. position on bombing Iraq and destroying Saddam Hussein are left with few facts to refute those who contend, either logically or illogically, that Saddam will not try to nuke New York and Washington and other critical areas of our country. Most also find it troubling to reconcile our support of Iraq in the war with Iran when considering the events of today. Our leaders' unwillingness to pursue Saddam and his supporters as the Gulf War ended add to this lack of certainty.

Time after time, American governments have led the citizenry to believe it has special expertise which, if it could only be revealed, would support its position against critics. At the same time, it hides the very information which would reveal its position to be either defensible or indefensible. The mendacity of the Kennedy administration on the Bay of Pigs operation, the secret operations of the CIA in Iran, Indonesia, Guatemala and other areas, the withholding of vital information about the Tonkin Gulf events by the Johnson administration are only a few examples of the way the average citizen becomes a victim of governmental deception.

The distribution of information to the public is a function of power and wealth. The government can color citizen understanding of events by its control of news. An alleged democratic decision for martial sacrifice of those ready to make the sacrifice is theoretically possible, but that presumption of democracy becomes suspect at the first shot because then others are affected by those who did not decide.

Jack Stapleton is the editor of Missouri News & Editorial Service.