CAMPAIGNS OFFER OPPORTUNITY FOR VOTERS TO JOIN IN

Whether consciously or not, voters spend a considerable portion of any political campaign examining not only the candidates, but the nature of contemporary American society, its institutions and its beliefs. This is one of the positive results in a democratic society, one that often produces a better-informed citizen, if not always a more understanding one.

Consider, if you will, what might have been the results of a full-blown U.S.-style election campaign during the Nazi regime of Hitler or a Japanese plebiscite during the reign of Emperor Hirohito. A campaign requiring a nation's leaders to discuss possible policy alternatives or propose initiatives that would resonate with the public could have prevented the disastrous results that brought about World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the conflict in Vietnam. Not all of these would have been prevented, but even one, had it been prevented, would have spared thousands of American lives.

While recognizing the positive aspects of election campaigns -- a time for orderly discussion, the introduction of new ideas and concepts, gaining new appreciation of demographic principles -- voters are often distanced from the process by the electoral system's methodology, which has become increasingly distorted in recent years as a result of the growing costs of campaigning. Part of these escalating expenses can be traced to America's growing population and part to the life-or-death consequences of losing, and still another part to the advent of new techniques in winning the loyalty of voters.

Not all of these, however, detract from the positive gain that can result from a collective reassessment of what the nation requires at this particular moment in history. And, thank heavens, voters have been right on more occasions than they have been wrong. We have chosen Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns, Roosevelts, Eisenhowers, Kennedys and even Reagans when their talents were most needed, when their qualities were destined to make a difference in the way America lived, worked and viewed its democracy.

The transformation of American campaigns has often been more qualitative than quantitative, not because the process itself has changed but because the participants we, the voters have changed, or rather the way the society in which we live has been transformed.

The assertion that Americans' basic character has changed is often heard today, but the facts are far from clear and may in fact be dead wrong. It's argued that we no longer care about the quality of education because the PTA membership has declined, but the fact is the rolls of unaffiliated parent-teacher organizations is far greater today than earlier PTA polls. The chances that an American is represented by one or even several organizations headquartered in Washington as least answers critics who swear we are going down the tube because we have lost our willingness to participate in the political process. The methodology has changed, not the desire to be heard and to influence.

Even if the campaign excesses of the past and they were many if now most often overlooked or forgotten are used as examples of a dying contemporary democratic system, there is no clear evidence that a republic is necessarily healthiest when large numbers of its citizens are perpetually eager to strike, demonstrate or pressure Congress or any political institution. One person's civic engagement is another's interest-group politics.

Some campaign critics have assessed the entire problem of apparent disinterest in the methodology now used for winning at the polls, but these are more new tools that require new rules, not abandonment. We can no more stop the consequences on today's campaign problems from the Internet, for example, when we can halt the age-old unprincipled use of lies and distortions in candidates' speeches. But no one believes it wise or advocates repeal of the First Amendment to correct campaign-speech untruths.

What the dreamers among us want is an America that is always responsible and well-behaved, always politically correct, always on its best behavior. If we had embraced these qualities when we were under the tutelage of King George III, we would be under the direction of a queen today.

Sure, there are excesses, oftentimes too many, but it is not the custom or the tradition of the United States to be submissive, and if Americans don't always act as they should history will still remember us as a country that demonstrated for the rest of mankind that generosity extends beyond national borders, that freedom of the individual is still a noble concept that belongs to every human being, and that being the greatest nation on the planet does not require being the most evil and destructive.

This year's campaign will turn out to be a futile exercise only if we stand by and ignore it. If we decide that the candidates are not up to par or that the electoral system is broken because of the widespread presence of cold cash or if we believe we have lost our voice because so many have louder volume, then we are simply abdicating both our individual rights and our collective responsibilities.

I don't know about you, but I know some who are unwilling to let democracy die because no one sent them an engraved invitation to join in.

Who sent one to Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln?

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