MISSOURI WATCH: POLITICAL FLUFF IS PASSING AS CAMPAIGN TALK

Participants in this year's Missouri campaigns will not take kindly to these words, and I will no doubt be excoriated at some future time by at least some of the persons now trying to pass themselves off as candidates for state offices. But the awful truth is that much of the verbiage being bandied about by the candidates and many of the feel-good electronic commercials that overrun our countryside are pure rot, worse than useless to 5.3 million Missourians.

For the sake of fairness, it should be stated right at the beginning that some candidates opt to base their campaigns on non-controversial, bland issues that seldom ruffle the feathers of their opponents, and which, more often than not, are accepted by an unsuspecting public as being of some importance. Otherwise, the logic goes, why would the candidate be talking about an issue if it weren't significant?

The truth is that most campaign themes are selected not on the basis of informing the electorate about the affairs of state but on points that the candidates believe will create damage to the opposition. Thus candidates willingly speak of the alleged egregious past of an opponent, yet avoid like the plague any mention of policies and programs that will affect the lives of millions of citizens in the state.

Political attacks are as old as the Republic, even at the outset of Colonial America, yet consider that earlier candidates had far less to discuss, far fewer problems to face and virtually none of the roadblocks that now abound in public governance. That, of course, is an excuse and not a reason for outlandish attacks against political foes, but even if it were once a valid reason, the prevalence of societal problems today, ranging from public education failures to widespread crime by youths not even in their teens to a society increasingly addicted to drugs, campaign vitriol no longer has a place in the serious political arena of campaigns.

The absence of sufficient contributions by the GOP nominee for governor, Margaret Kelly, has given Missourians a brief respite from the campaign oratory that flooded our state in 1992, and any relief we have experienced this year will be, at best, short-lived. Still, despite the relatively brief but still too lengthy campaign period this year, the candidates have hardly been falling over themselves to discuss the real-life problems that will face them if elected and will most assuredly face the citizens of Missouri for the next four years.

The other statewide races, with rare exceptions, have been even more devoid of real issues, and while character is most assuredly one important point to be considered in all of the contests, the manner in which the candidate intends to conduct himself for the next four years and the ideas the candidates have on how to administer an important state function are still very germane to the more than five million men, women and children of this state.

It is safe to say that, for the most part, the average Missouri voter has not received a single clue as to how most of this year's candidates will conduct themselves if elected.

Unfortunately, this same campaign blackout is going on all around the state, in the 163 contests for the Missouri House of Representatives and the 17 races for membership in the Missouri Senate. Far too many of these legislative contests center around the appearance of the candidate, his or her record of community service and whether the office seeker appears to be of sober demeanor and has never faced charges of child molestation. These are important points, of course, but some of the best legislators the state has had have been uglier than a mud fence; some had never made a single worthwhile contribution before becoming an exceptional lawmaker; and at least a few suffered problems with John Barleycorn even as they were enacting legislation that was of great benefit to society as a whole.

Yet none of these physically, mentally or morally challenged public officials who managed to provide exceptional public service were afraid to tackle controversial problems and offer solutions that would provide assistance to the public.

This year's campaign has neatly avoided numerous and compelling problems that must eventually be attacked. Since the definition of the word problem carries with it the implication of a difficulty to resolve, candidates avoid these policy conundrums with a passion, unless they can turn the issue into a positive negative. which means tarring and feathering the opponent with real or imagined crimes.

Despite what pitfalls might be encountered, it's safe to say Missourians would like their candidates for public office to shed some light on such problems as....

1. What can the state do to increase its K-12 educational standards and achievements?

2. How far do Missourians want to go in making up the federal welfare shortfalls, and should standards for welfare assistance for the state be higher or lower than those that have been decreed by Washington?

3. What steps can the state take to reduce major crimes against persons and property?

4. What role should the state play in seeking remedies for deteriorating urban centers?

5. Should Missouri continue to shutter its traditional mental hospitals in favor of more expensive private care facilities?

6. How many prisons should the state build and are there alternatives to expensive correctional facilities?

7. Isn't it time to grant private retirement recipients the same tax relief already given to federal retirees?

8. How can Jefferson City become more responsive to the individual concerns of its citizens?

This is only a short list of problems the state should be debating even as the candidates attack their opponents for real or imagined sins that have nothing at all to do with life in Missouri for the next four years.

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