DO WE VOTE OUR PRINCIPLES OR OUR PREJUDICES?

Let's pretend you agree with the premise that there's a difference between prejudice and wisdom, and let's assume that in selecting candidates for public office, voters were required to have one without the other. Unless a citizen had both tolerance and knowledge, he or she would be required to undergo a hypothetical test designed to measure the degree of both qualities, with a passing grade achieved if one were able to explain not only the concepts of the U. S. Constitution but how they should be applied to improve the quality of governance.

If such implausible rules were in effect, would you vote to install such a Platonist system in our republic, or would you adopt a more egalitarian view that each citizen is entitled to equal power and thus equal voice in deciding public policies?

Over the years my own personal view of this subject has moved from right to left or in the opposite direction, often influenced by the degree of cynicism felt after some momentous moment in our American history. Fresh out of the service after World War II, I suppose I came down harder on the egalitarian side, believing that we didn't fight the most devastating war in history to restrict the liberties of anyone. Since then, from time to time, it has seemed to me that the mindlessness of modern society has often created an electorate that had no idea of any complex subject we might be facing at the moment. I sometimes grow weary, as I'm sure you do, of seeing someone's eyes glass over when the subject of trade agreements or human rights or equal opportunity is being discussed.

We Americans have a penchant for resolving our own, often convoluted views by expressing bombastic solutions for highly complex issues. I've heard members of my own family say such things as "Hanging is too good for them" without ever expressing what would be a satisfactory punishment for anyone who didn't march in lockstep. I don't know about you, but there have been numerous occasions in which my eagerness to understand both sides of a question actually made any solution I might offer totally worthless and without merit. On the other hand, our views can be so firm that we automatically reject any and all facts that argue against their validation.

Without any evidence to prove it, I suspect that if the presidential election were held today, the results wouldn't be much different than they will be on Nov. 7. Most voters have probably made up their minds, and it is the rare individual who enters a campaign favoring one candidate and switches horses in midstream to favor the other. We are as bound by our prejudices as we are by topical circumstances and influences.

Our Founding Fathers hoped to avoid these prejudices, perhaps knowing full well that such wishes were contrary to human nature, which is one reason George Washington vehemently rejected the idea of a constitutional monarchy in favor of one in which national leadership could be changed after a brief four years. He quite possibly realized that the basic disagreements between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would not disappear under autocratic rule and that it was far more responsible to make opposing forces conform to the wishes of the majority than to create the stability guaranteed by a monarchial government. Sometime I would like to read a book that discusses the brilliant foresight of Washington rather than the genius of Jefferson, which always seems to delve at great length on whether the Virginian landowner had sexual relations with his female slave.

I have no data to prove the assertion that the personal lives of our political candidates have nothing to do with their success at governing and on the other hand their personal characteristics have everything to do with their electoral popularity. We have generally idealized Jefferson because he was young, energetic and visionary, while at the same time have subordinated the influence of others with positive, but different, qualities because they failed to appeal to the unconscious standard we set for our leaders. If you doubt this premise, let me ask how many people you have heard mention the now infamous smirk of George W. Bush or castigate the boring monotone of Al Gore. One popular TV host, rejecting both candidates because of their appearance and personal characteristics, has even given both of them uncomplimentary nicknames. Thank heavens he wasn't in Philadelphia when the qualifications for public office were being decided.

I started this piece by asking whether you favored some kind of character, intelligence or comprehension standard be set for those who select our leaders, wondering if you were as worried as I that the problem is less about conniving politicians than the unthinking, indifferent citizens who elect them. If you have already chosen your favorite candidates for president, governor, senator and congressman, then you must have done so without waiting to hear from all of the candidates and listening to what they have to say about the problems and the issues that will impact your life, and the lives of your loved ones, for the next four or six years.

Frankly, I don't believe we should be required to pass an intelligence test to vote, despite the appeal of having an informed citizenry. But I very much agree with the concept repeated time after time by those who founded our republic that its ultimate success depends less on the characteristics of the leaders we choose and more on the willingness of citizens to be both informed and tolerant of the views of others.

It rests, dear voter, on whether you have sufficient interest in the future of America to become as familiar as possible with the issues at stake, when and if we can get the candidates to discuss them intelligently, and whether you will vote beyond your prejudices in casting votes for the candidates you believe are the best qualified to promote the ideals of our still emerging democracy.

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