A STUDENT ASKS WHAT'S WRONG WITH AMERICA

The political science class at a state university in Missouri had been discussing the problems attached to funding governmental services demanded by constituents when a student raised her hand and asked, "What's wrong with America?"

The teacher, somewhat taken aback since the question was somewhat irrelevant to his lecture, stammered for a few minutes and then attempted to provide an answer:

Perhaps, he said, it can be traced to a presidential lineage going all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt, a man the class members knew only from history books. Perhaps it involves a loss of leadership that is seldom touched upon by today's political practitioners, one involving moral principles as well as political strategies.

We are living in an age, the instructor continued, when a sitting president is being sued for criminal harassment, and what is worse, scarcely anyone seems to have noticed. The questions being asked about the lawsuit in national opinion surveys is not whether Americans are shocked by it but whether they believe it will make any difference in how the nation is governed and whether it causes personal concern among the public in general.

The general response appears to be that Americans are not unduly upset by the allegations against their president and, no, it doesn't seem to make much difference to a majority of those polled. Finally, the surveys seem to indicate that our government can function without pause, though its chief official has been named a defendant in a serious lawsuit.

The instructor told his class that, personally, he didn't agree with the sanguine reaction of the public.

Some, but not all, historians have written that recent chief executives have merely been reflections of American society as a whole and not a few have concluded that our presidential leadership has actually been remarkable, considering the demands of the office, the threats of foreign aggression and the difficulty in managing our domestic economy in the face of modern monetary displacement.

Once again, the teacher said he didn't agree with this historical assessment.

Still trying to answer the student's question, the instructor noted a long line of moral turpitude, starting from the days of FDR and extending, unfortunately, to the present occupant of the White House. Confirming a long-held conviction that individuals have the right to choose their own lifestyles without undue interference from public authority, the lecturer said this conviction did not include those who, on their own volition, sought public office and constitutional power.

Despite this, he noted, the United States has witnessed a long series of elected presidents who, in a variety of fields, displayed an unseemly predilection toward human frailty and mortal appetites bordering on wanton gluttony. Had FDR operated in today's climate, under seemingly unending press scrutiny, he would probably have never been elected in 1934 and, most certainly, probably never re-elected three times thereafter.

Would Missouri's political patron saint, Harry Truman, have survived the background checks that would have shown his close ties to one of the vilest organizations ever to exist in America? Jack Kennedy's fondness for female companionship would have rendered him persona non grata at the polls as recently as 1960.

As for Lyndon Johnson's willingness to cut moral and ethical corners, his behind-the-scenes conduct on just the Vietnam war alone would have aroused public sentiment far more than it did. LBJ, as history has since shown, was a notorious liar in the Oval Office and pursued power with a vengeance not likely emulated since Genghis Khan. Richard Nixon's involvement in Watergate has just recently been rehashed, but generally omitted was his attempt to politicize the federal justice system and use investigations and prosecutions as political weapons. Numerous Missourians were victims of this immoral practice.

Gerald Ford was incapable of exercising great leadership. Jimmy Carter, a highly religious person, was not immune to temptations that were the antithesis of representative government, nor was his successor, a charming but limited Hollywood actor named Ronald Reagan. The great irony of the Reagan administration was that it started with promises to balance the budget and reduce the public debt and wound up greatly unbalancing the former and tripling the latter. Our most recent ex-president, with a lifetime of public service, seemed a letter-perfect candidate for the office and, once there, pretended he didn't understand the duties.

As for the incumbent, the teacher noted, the past seems to be rendering him a tragic figure, one whose earlier life is overshadowing his present one. Overpromising is a sin astute politicians seek to avoid, while our current chief executive appears to embrace it as a virtue. His administration has not, unfortunately, reflected the American public, nor is it likely to, given this president's demonstrated weaknesses.

Those who argue that presidents are merely benign figures who exert no influence on the national psyche are wrong. Consciously or unconsciously, Americans react to and reflect the persona of their leader, just as the German population did in the early 1930s as Adolf Hitler rose to power. The British reflected the courage of Winston Churchill, just as China became the embodiment of Mao Tse-tung's personal view of communism.

America's overriding problem is that it lacks, and has lacked for three decades, great moral leadership from its elected officials. It has lacked this leadership because those who occupied the office were absent it themselves. And, we will not reach the potential that is clearly ours until we have that quality in the Oval Office.

The teacher looked at the student who had asked the question at the beginning of the lecture. Does that answer your question, he wanted to know.

"Not exactly," she replied. "I wanted to know why we didn't do better at the winter Olympics."