MISSOURI WATCH: POLITICS BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE POLITICIANS

Let's begin with an idea that may not have occurred to some voters but which deserves more thoughtful study than it has received in recent years.

But, first, a question: Who owns the political process by which we elect our leaders in the nation's capital, the 50 state capitals and thousands of courthouses and city halls around the country?

If you immediately answered that politicians own the political process, you were no doubt responding to years and years of conditioning in which candidates for public office defined the issues, the qualifications for the office being sought and then set the tone for the next few weeks or months of campaigning. Not only do the candidates tell the electorate what is to be discussed, they set the criteria for the public office itself.

In case you have trouble accepting my premise, consider the atrocious campaigns now being waged for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. As the candidates themselves have constantly reaffirmed, the issues are mainly which candidate appears to be the most presidential, which man offers a "new face" to the arena, which candidate has "new" ideas and which ones are merely responding to the old cliches.

Are these the issues the public is most interested in, and if so, why have the voters in closest proximity to the candidates---party members in Iowa and New Hampshire, for example---grown so weary of the campaigns and their ubiquitous attack commercials and print ads? They have grown weary---sick and tired is perhaps a better phrase---because what Bob Dole, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, Lamar Alexander and Pat Buchanan are discussing is of only peripheral concern to the millions of voters being romanced by the candidates.

The candidates have targeted Forbes' "flat tax" idea as if it had a possibility of being enacted into law anytime in this century. If you give the multimillionaire credit for mentioning something new in the race, you also have to penalize him for injecting a level of dialogue that is, at best, only sewer-level. Forbes' idea of how much millions of American families should pay for federal governance is at best tentative, given the fact that even if he were occupying the White House, chances of writing his plan into law would be remote, or less.

No sooner had Forbes advocated a change in the tax system than Phil Gramm and Lamar Alexander presented their "improved" versions. To his credit, Dole remained aloof, pending far more study than the idea has received to date. Perhaps when the elections are over, a flat tax plan is possible, but to say this idea is so important that it can vault its sponsor to the Oval Office is simply unthinkable.

There are innumerable surveys which indicate Americans in 1996 have several very vital concerns which they would like addressed but which to date have barely been mentioned. These surveys show that Americans from all walks of life are eager to deliberate about pocketbook pressures, family breakdown and America's role in the world. There are voter agendas that include the widening gap between rich and poor, how to prepare today's workers for tomorrow's workplaces, how to deal with welfare recipients whose problems are far more complicated than mere back-to-work schemes, and industrial downsizing.

Have any voters heard of these problems discussed in detail by this year's candidates? I haven't, and I doubt very seriously if anyone else has either. For the candidates are listening not to questions asked by the voters but to the "hot-button issues" outlined by their campaign consultants, managers and advisers. If a so-called "expert" really knows what the public wants to hear, as opposed to what he believes will get his candidate elected, which path do you believe will be recommended? Certainly not the one that targets the concerns of the public.

We have entered a point in America's political history in which straw candidates are being manipulated by professional handlers, much the way boxers are handled by pugilistic experts. And not only do we have campaign manipulators who travel from candidate to candidate, we have a media industry that listens rather than interprets, responds rather than analyzes, reacts rather than reflects. In some quarters, this is called lazy journalism, and perhaps it is, but it is unquestionably leading to a putrefaction of politics that threatens the future of the democratic process.

It's time to return politics to its rightful owners: the voters of America whose questions and concerns are being ignored by those who seek to govern them for the next four years.

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