AMERICANS MIGHT YET PREVAIL, BUT WILL THE GOVERNMENT HELP?

This was a scene played out in a thousand humdrum movies that enjoyed, if that is the proper word, hillbillies and moonshiners as their protagonists.

Inevitably in these films, a shotgun blast would rattle through a forest and one of the hillfolk, standing watch over a copper pot loaded with corn squeezin's, would ask what in tarnation the gunman was aiming at.

The trigger-happy rube would clench his teeth on a corn-cob pipe and spit out, "Dang revenooer."

The "revenooer," of course, was a representative of the Department of Revenue, a man who took unkindly to the manufacture of liquor that would not be taxed. Hillbillies had as much use for a "revenooer" as they did for a bear in their cupboard.

Thus, since the rustics were benign sorts only putting to use those resources God gave them, and since revenue agents were beady-eyed sneaks looking to ruin a way of life, the government boys usually were played for fools and generally were provided their come~uppance.

Bad as they were, these movies might be worthy of a comeback. A lot of people are of the mind today that persons of a governmental ~persuasion could use the wake-up call that only a load of buckshot overhead can provide.

The U.S. Constitution starts with the words "We the people." Clearly, Americans no longer regard those in governmental service as some of "us."

Government, at some point, stopped being an arm of the people and started being an adversary.

Taxes get voted down because people don't trust their elected representatives to do what's right with the money. Businesses are left in a perpetual state of uncertainty by agencies with unpitying initials like OSHA and EPA. Persons having trouble making ends meet will find time to curse the IRS. Developers love the fact that every bureaucrat with a tongue has voiced a ~"wetland" definition.

People are sour on legislators who exempt themselves from the laws they pass, who casually bounce checks, who skip out on restaurant tabs and who attempt to make some public documents private while making other private documents public.

Anyone paying close attention to the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill debacle saw not just a tawdry story exposed but a process lost to fits and starts and an assembly of high-powered men who do not inspire confidence.

The citizen-lawmakers our founding fathers supposedly envisioned in crafting this system of government have evolved into a ruling class that, at best, helps its constituents battle a tightly woven bureaucracy of legislative making and, at worst, lacks a firm grip on reality outside its own narrow world.

Is it any wonder that talk in many states has turned to limiting the terms of office holders, particularly those sent to the nation's capital? Voters have even lost faith in their own ability to reject a system not working to their satisfaction.

These proposals of term limitations pose me some problems. While Missourians currently face limitations on certain offices president and governor I'm not thrilled with the idea of having to select an arbitrary someone when the person I like is sitting in office but restricted from reelection.

In addition, approving term limitations will not automatically fix an ailing government any more than the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction amendment helped put black ink back on the federal budget. Making laws to protect the public from lawmakers offers little in the way of good sense. Persons expecting a panacea from having the rascals thrown out should wake up.

Still, people have good reason for thinking that a new group in Washington might not foul things up any worse than the current crop. Could they do worse than depress the nation with mediocrity?

Term limitation opponents mock this notion, saying freshmen running loose in the corridors of power would be chaos. I actually heard this argument on a talk show: "It takes a year in office to find where the Xerox machine is."

When I took my current job, I found the copying machine the first day; if lawmakers can't do as well, they don't deserve election.

Still, call me a patriot. My faith in America is unshakable, and I believe the nation will prevail. The trouble is, it might do so not with the help of the government, but in spite of it.