MISSOURI WATCH: OUR AGELESS DILEMMA: WANTING IT BOTH WAYS

One year ends, another begins. It's the eternal sequence, one that each of us has followed since we arrived on planet Earth. Although the zodiacal date for Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 scarcely differ and the numbering of days on the calendar is strictly conventional (our calendar was last revised in 1752), somehow the turnover of years carries special meaning in the human psyche.

What kind of year did we just leave behind? Actually, as far as monumental history was concerned, it was pretty nondescript, wouldn't you say? If you read the national newsmagazines, you would have pictorial proof that the biggest news of the year was the death of a British princess, which, if you will pardon the sentiment, simply proves the above point.

Economically, 1997 was another strong year, one that thumbed its nose at the warning that collapse is just around the corner. Wall Street's icon, the Dow Jones, faltered on occasion but managed to recover nicely. Even the less certain farm economy had no more than its usual ups and downs. Farm income drifted only moderately downward from its high mark of 1996.

Politically, there was a deluge of rhetoric deploring practices in campaign financing that, not surprisingly, led to nothing. President Clinton's overtures to the opposition proved ineffectual on Fast Track trade legislation, but his real enemy was his own party. That leads to wondering whether political subdivision is now sharper within parties than between them. And, if this is the case, what is the future to bring in the way of replacing the old party factions? I simply don't know, and I suspect no one else does either.

Here's a personal interpretation of the political scene of 1997 and other recent years. It's mildly defensive of both the executive and legislative branches of government. I suggest that the limited effectiveness of the legislative process is traceable to the divisiveness among the citizenry. Americans of today don't know where they want to go.

Perhaps better stated, they want to go in two directions. They want the creature comforts modern technology makes possible, but also a simpler and more secure life. Unfortunately, I'm almost certain these goals are incompatible.

If supporting evidence is needed about the two-minded views of Americans, the Contract With America experience is essentially corroborative. The contract's promises had wide appeal, but action to put them into practice ran into more than a little resistance.

The heart of the matter is that the creature comforts with which we smother ourselves are for the most part the product of industrial processes. Industrialization involves, and in fact requires, a structured order. It relies on tightly administered process control, in sharp contrast with the lackadaisical agrarian society that prevailed prior to the Industrial Revolution four centuries ago.

Our American philosophy of government dates from the opening years of that revolution. Updated, the question that now plagues us is whether and how the democratic principles that were developed originally in an economy of small farmers and small tradesmen can be sustained in the gargantuan industrial economy of today. There is some solace in noting that this conundrum is hardly a new one.

Two philosophers of the early Industrial Era, both English, mulled over the issues that still bother us today. John Locke posed these issues in terms of dichotomy of order versus anarchy. Today, many of us are concerned about the size and proportions of technology, the global economy and big government. In other words, institutions that have grown beyond the human scale. We fear that the time-honored commitments of employers to their workers and citizens to their communities have been weakened. Moreover, the fear of random violence intrudes upon peoples' daily consciousness.

In all of these fears, we search for answers that are not readily apparent. And in confronting these fears, we begin to fear that there may be no real answer or solution in our lifetimes. Which may help explain why we are not as happy about the advent of the new year as relieved that we made it through the last one. This, dear readers, has been the mantra of mankind since Adam and Eve.

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