CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL EVOLUTION IS ALARMING

It should be considered mortal sin to engage our government in the sordid soil of politics. -- Benjamin Franklin

KENNETT, Mo. -- One of the most respected founders of our Republic took the occasion of the signing of the Constitution in 1787 to warn against the establishment of partisan politics in the new nation's affairs of state, a view he shared with both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who were surprisingly joined by their severest critic, John Adams.

The constitutional innovators who gathered in Philadelphia before and after the American Revolution were unanimous in shielding the new Americans from the petty and partisan myopia that had earlier destroyed numerous governments throughout Europe.

Yet the Founders' warning, at first religiously heeded and observed, would eventually make its grand entrance in Washington as a result of serious disagreements between partisan advocates, although it is interesting to note that in the pre-Civil War era, the political parties were gradually losing some of the power they had accumulated earlier.

Abraham Lincoln's efforts to convert a philosophically conservative Whig Party into a vibrant Republican philosophy created a welcome if risky counterforce to an increasingly jingoistic opposition.

Even as recently as the Great Depression, partisanship was oven viewed as a diversionary factor rather than the overriding force in federal governance, while state governments, when there were actual political differences, were divided primarily by philosophical divisions that had earlier brought about the catastrophic War Between the States.

Franklin Roosevelt's hesitating answers to the great economic malaise that gripped America in the early 1930s were less political than proffered solutions of last resort. The governor of New York based much of his successful 1932 run for the presidency not on the promises of a divided Democratic philosophy but on the lack of visionary response from his opponent, White House incumbent Herbert Hoover.

As events were to prove later, FDR had no idea what Washington could do to reverse the depressively downward spiral of a floundering economy, and his experiments in boosting both the financial and mental depression of the U.S. were more reminiscent of a drowning man grabbing for a life raft than the utilization of political dogma and philosophy.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. -- George Bernard Shaw

The moment political parties decided they could substitute partisan philosophy for personal personality is still unclear, but sometime between FDR and GWB America entered a new era that today presents a formidable challenge to the future of representative government in America.

With the introduction of a philosophy that places more importance on the advancement of political dogma than responsible leadership is a dangerous and alarming denouement that threatens to entangle the affairs of American government in a morass of contradictions.

We elect our leaders based on their promises to guide the nation or state with responsible leadership, but no sooner has the election been decided than the vision becomes more limited and the pledged remedies buried in the euphoria of victory.

When he successfully sought the presidency in 1992, the governor of Arkansas promised a new vision for the country, and his pledges resounded well among an electorate that had grown weary of seemingly fumbling leadership.

But Clinton's declaration of responsibility turned out to be a search for expediency in governing and his once visionary plans for creating a more noble America were transformed into a search for personal, and political, popularity. It was the very danger first noted by America's founding president, George Washington.

In this world, there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. -- Oscar Wilde

Because they were a first surprised and later amazed at his popularity without regard to party allegiance, Republicans embraced Ronald Reagan as the creator of a new path to governing, but the truth is that as president, he displayed little partisan dogma even as his followers were displaying increasing amounts of it.

The GOP leadership had long sought to inaugurate a diminished role for the federal government (echoes of which have gained volume since last December) but the reality of Reagan's actions was something different.

Reagan governed less from the bible of conservatism than from a pragmatic strategy to minimize partisan rhetoric and govern for the greatest number of constituents. Whether he succeeded only history will decide, but my guess is that future historians will bestow on the former Hollywood actor far more understanding of the needs and wishes of the American population than the contemporary crop.

When Americans complain that the quality of today's political leaders is flawed, they may well be voicing a dissatisfaction that has nothing to do with leadership ability or personality.

Instead they may view today's potential leaders as lacking in the one virtue that the electorate possesses in great measure: nonpartisanship. This doesn't mean isolated political dogma has disappeared from the earth. It simply means voters have greater respect for those political figures who return the favor and show concern for a variety of views, some of which are beneficial and some of which are pejorative.

Whether the venue is Washington, D.C., or Jefferson City, Mo., America is awash in a partisan sea that threatens to engulf the dreams of our founders. We ignore the dangers of partisan divisions at the risk of forfeiting visionary, responsible governance.

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