MISSOURI WATCH: LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT AND CYNICISM

Throughout the more than 200-year history of the United States, and in civilizations preceding our federalism, governments have generally proved to be better protectors than providers. In the main, the U.S. has done a better job of meeting its constitutional duty of protecting both the shores and the integrity of America than in meeting the provisional needs of its citizens.

-This observation does not bespeak failure. Indeed,

just the opposite, because at this moment in our history, a great number of Americans are convinced their government can do nothing successfully and is woefully unable to handle any but the simplest of responsibilities. We have, in an age rapidly becoming cynical, become even more cynical about the ability of governments at all levels to meet any challenge or deliver any goods in remarkably good condition.

And that cynicism, dear readers, could well dump us into thermally treated water that will scald us.

Before we completely excoriate all governments, let us remember first of all that the primary function of our federal government is to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. This overriding theme in both the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Constitution was only natural, since the first concern of our forbearers was in their ability to remain free and independent from outside forces. It was essential that any government formed in 1776, 1781 or 1792 be able to provide adequate protection from invading armies and navies. Constitutional framers viewed this goal as essential above and beyond any other, since anyone finding himself in a pot of boiling water can be forgiven if he forgets to bless the meal that is about to be served.

It is well to remember in 1994 that life in the early days of our nation was centered pretty much around survival, and not necessarily was that opportunity guaranteed to the fittest.

Jump ahead to life in America a century later, and realize that in the mere passage of 100 years, the United States had endured the most debilitating of all conflicts, a civil war, in which brother fought brother and for which the only prize was the continuation of a dream that had been put to words a century before in a rustic village called Philadelphia. Before another century could pass, we would find ourselves in two world conflicts that could have destroyed Western civilization, not to mention numerous police actions that were nothing more than undeclared wars that still produced death and destruction.

So when I hear some political candidate today say that government can do nothing, I say a little prayer for his or her memory loss. The government of the United States has done something very, very well for the past 218 years: it has preserved our union, protected our shores and kept the invading hordes of despotism from our land. It has survived intact, witnessing the deaths of nations as militarily strong as America, because it did its job better than anyone else could have.

It is no surprise that Washington does a better job of protection than meeting the needs of a quarter of a billion Americans, whose wants are as diverse as their ethnic backgrounds. For years our federal government, and its 50 counterpart state governments, focused on protection because of the urgency of one crisis that seemed to follow another. When we were at last able to meet challenges at another level, we focused first on the hunger in our land that stalked families and, particularly, their young. Government has been dispensing food in various means since the days following the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, and today we do it so easily that barely anyone notices.

No other government in the world dispenses the volume of essential foodstuffs with the ease of Washington. It is done so efficiently we don't even notice how challenging the job really is. Of course our government can do things right.

Take the problem of the elderly, the men and women who work all their lives, with little to show for their labors. Governments around much of the world dispense with the problem through carefully studied neglect. America meets this challenge with Social Security and a pension system that is remarkably efficient and effectively administered. Not only do we meet this need, we have provided a health-care system for the elderly that, again, is efficient and cost-effective.

It is well to recall on occasions when government is being hounded by the politically insecure and historically challenged that when Americans began discussing the need to feed, protect and care for its citizens, there were those who said it shouldn't be done even if it could be done. The opponents to all of these goals said they would be too expensive, too cumbersome, too troublesome, too demeaning, too un-American.

The opponents like to cite their long-standing patriotism, dating it back to the founding of the Republic, and throughout that long period of time, their witnessing of America's progress. And the opponents have been against every step of progress that has been taken since Jefferson challenged Adams to find a better form of government than one in which the protection of the few became the responsibility of the many.

Government doesn't always work well, not because there is a flaw in our system of governance, but because there are flaws in those who plan, administer and execute programs. It can be argued that governments have no right to establish plans that are not agreed upon by every citizen, and that works well in political theory classes, but universal approval never seems to be a requisite when an enemy army is preparing to attack, when young children are dying from hunger or homes are being inundated by floods. In such times, aid is never refused nor are questions of its constitutionality ever raised.

~Jack Stapleton is a Kennett columnist.