JUST FINISHED CAMPAIGN NOT VINTAGE ONE FOR MISSOURIANS

We're going to do what we always do after a Missouri election: congratulate the winners and the losers. After all, if it weren't for the losers there would have been no need to hold an election. While this unhappy alternative might be enthusiastically welcomed at the moment by an electorate that has been overdosed by 30-second television commercials, elections like the one Aug. 4 are the only chance left for average citizens to have as much influence over government as those who shell out hundreds and even thousands of dollars to gain influence with the candidates. All groups are equal on election day, since all votes are equal, even if the balance changes dramatically the day after.

Although this year's campaign seemed to begin years ago, and despite the fact that 2.8 million registered voters grew proportionately disenchanted the closer the election came, we are nevertheless left with a group of candidates in both parties who will now finish the quadrennial season November 3. Just as family squabbles can escalate into the most-violent of arguments, so, too, can primary contests appeal to the lowest common denominator of political behavior. Candidates say things about their primary opponents they wouldn't dream of mentioning during the off-season.

Frankly, a certain percentage of voters actually like it when politicians talk dirty. Among the many frailties we humans are stuck with is the desire to know something about our neighbor that places him or her in an unfavorable light, positioning them below us in the moral food chain. It is not a desirable trait but it ought to be recognized for what it is: a human failing that should not be pandered to by those who want to lead us. As this year's primary has so forcefully illustrated, not many candidates can resist the temptation.

One result of the campaign should be disturbing to the thousands of Missourians who contributed $1 or $1,000 to a favorite candidate: few of their dollars were spent to inform and educate the voters. Candidates seek contributions so they can get their message to the voters. At least this is what they tell us when they make their pitches for campaign cash. "I need to get my platform out to the voters," they say as they shake our right hand and lift our contributions from the left one.

Unfortunately, when the campaign actually gets started, much of the public's money goes to employ staff, hire consultants, buy bumper stickers and meaningless campaign literature, and reserve television time for final-month commercials that depict the candidate in some mindless activity. Vast portions of the money are used to trash the opponent, seeking a positive effect from negative advertising. No one has ever proved that the electoral process is strengthened by the destruction of candidates seeking public office.

It's significant, we believe, that none of the statewide candidates seeking primary victories August 4 ever mentioned the five constitutional amendments that were submitted to voters at the same time. Here were five important questions, sent to the electorate to decide by their elected representatives who felt the issues were important enough to submit for public referendum. If candidates were interested in informing voters, the least they could have done was provide the public with their own views on the proposals. A couple of the amendments were complicated enough to warrant public discussion, yet voters received no hint of how the candidates felt nor any advisory on which would be beneficial or harmful to the state as a whole. The candidates were too busy with their own campaigns to exert any leadership, which is what their campaign literature told us they were dying to do.

Despite a better turnout than has been customary in recent years, this was a lackluster campaign at best. Its most obvious feature was the negative tone sounded by the candidates, and its least significant was any intelligent discussion of important issues, most of which were either sublimated or ignored altogether.

As proof of this, it is fair to note that few of the winning candidates can be associated with any issue, any belief, any program or platform that was introduced and discussed during the campaign. It's true that many of candidates can be identified by their stand on abortion, yet virtually none of the offices being sought will have any influence at all on this question. The candidates are identifiable on abortion primarily because advocates on both sides of the issue have made the identification; most candidates for public office would like to avoid the question altogether.

This was not a vintage campaign for Missouri.