IN MISSOURI, IT'S ANOTHER CHARLIE BROWN CAMPAIGN

KENNETT, Mo. -- "Elections," the renowned philosopher Charlie Brown once declared to a reclining Snoopy positioned atop his home, "are all about who talks the longest, loudest and mostest." Charlie's companion offered no comment, although he might have had he been able to witness the campaigns currently occurring in many jurisdictions around the country.

There's our own state of Missouri as just one example, as egregious as any that comes to mind. We have six candidates for the office of U.S. senator, one being the incumbent, John Ashcroft, and another the current governor of Missouri, Mel Carnahan. You may not have heard of the other four unless you happen to live next door to one, so we'll not go into their qualifications nor reason for seeking public office.

Can anyone say, without prompting, what either of the two leading candidates for the nation's highest legislative body have discussed that has any relevance to the way we ordinary citizens live? Can you accurately describe the views of both candidates on any subject they have disagreed on? On which basis will you vote for one of the six candidates: appearance, party affiliation, past record, color of hair, height, weight? If you believe the last three qualities are not relevant to campaign selection, consider how many times you have heard criticisms of our presidential candidates based on a facial expression or oratorical skill.

If any other candidate had George Bush's smirk and Al Gore's sing-song monotone voice, he couldn't be elected toll collector for the New York City subway system.

If you doubt the validity of Charlie Brown's qualifications for certain electoral success, consider the issues that have been raised and intellectually and politically avoided in Missouri's gubernatorial contest between Jim Talent and Bob Holden, two of the seven candidates on the Nov. 7 ballot. Three of the issues raised thus far have created far less impact than could reasonably be expected: health care, schools and drugs. The two major candidates disagree on how these issues can be resolved, if indeed they can be, but thus far the public has generally responded with a why-are-you-bothering-me-because-I-don't-know yawn.

Officials have debated highway improvement ad nauseam, with virtually little room for common agreement on an acceptable remedy. The education issue in this campaign has not received a single innovative suggestion from any of the candidates. And there are few citizens who believe the current wars against drugs have netted any significant dent in the addiction problem.

Unless the vision of the leading candidates is improved, the state is virtually assured of four more years of time-tried, proved-wrong answers for virtually all issues.

Missourians will also be electing a lieutenant governor (seven candidates for this job), secretary of state (seven candidates), state treasurer (also seven candidates) and attorney general (three candidates). If Regis Philbin were around, he might ask what issues are at stake in any of these races and what do Missourians know about the candidates in a addition to name recognition. Surely Charlie Brown's Law of Electoral Success will apply in several or even all of these races, given the lack of public interest, voter knowledge and overall indifference to these important statewide problems.

I hesitate to broach this question, but has anyone studied the five constitutional and statutory questions that will also be on next month's ballot? If not, let me suggest that unless you want to adopt the Charlie Brown law, you get cracking on some significant issues that will affect citizens' lives in several significant ways. Three of these issues are proposed constitutional amendments while two are statutory propositions that, if approved, will have the force of law.

I don't want to intrude on your time, but one of the amendments deals with a few of the public's favorite whipping boys: legislative and judicial salaries, and it's a corker since it virtually mandates salary levels set by the Citizen's Commission on Compensation. It also relieves the panel of the right to set mileage and expense allowances for legislators, a power that is relatively insignificant in view of its increased clout in setting multiple major state salaries.

Still another proposal that will be handed to a surprised voting public next month is one creating a campaign finance fund in the state. Voters will hear loud shrieks of protest, since it rearranges the way future campaigns will be conducted and calls for an increase in the corporate franchise tax to fund election efforts by candidates willing to follow spending and contribution limits. There will be plenty said about this proposition, some of it loud, long and wrong.

What is the role of this year's campaign in our future? Some would say it has no role to play, and unfortunately this has been the answer of many candidates who are now running up and down the state, speaking at fund-raising dinners and raising the partisan temperatures of their audiences. The answer might also be found by recalling something said by Abraham Lincoln: "We should have all the government we need but only the government we need." If the public is really to know and understand what is needed, we must know and understand the meaning of campaign issues -- both in the present tense and what these issues hold for the future.

Governmental policy is not made in a vacuum. It comes from clearly recognizing what is needed and what is possible -- and combining both into an efficient and mutually beneficial delivery system. Each of us should be painfully aware of our individual responsibility and aware that in governing, as elsewhere, the devil is in the details.

The failure to learn these details means we have failed our government and, just as importantly, our civic duties.

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