MISSOURI WATCH: POLITICS, POWER, REALITY

Americans have sanctioned political parties for so long that many must believe the system was sanctioned, if not devised, by the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth, and whether we like it or not, our federal and state governments are immutably attached to the existence of a Democratic and Republican party.

One is able to find pockets of modern society in which political allegiance is as strong as religious faith, and over the years the two have become so entwined in the minds of millions of Americans that it is virtually impossible to separate them. Waves of immigrants hitting American shores over the past century have brought with them their religious beliefs, their ethical codes and the nationalistic habits that we often associate with their native countries.

As for their political beliefs, however, they have had to adopt to the mores of their new country, for America has demanded from both its earliest and most recent citizens a belief that governments only function when we have two political parties which compete not only for the right to govern but for the public's love, support and dying devotion.

Despite an occasional outburst of independence from a new generation, or a rebirth of freedom from past prejudices by an older generation, we accept the two-party system as if it were vital to the nation, applying all kinds of attributes to political competition as if our patriotism depended on it.

In recent weeks we have witnessed a change of party allegiance as a result of the Republican sweep at last November's polls, and in these cases, those of the newly chosen faith welcome the newcomer as if he had just experienced divine enlightenment. What is surprising is not that a few make the decision to switch allegiance but that so few actually display the courage to change. Except among the most wild-eyed of the faith, no one really believes either political party has all the answers while the opposition blindly embraces all the wrong ones.

It is informative to note that in Missouri's state capital, at least two and quite possibly all three branches of government are driven by political ideology. As has been the case for four decades, the majority party in the legislative branch has been Democratic, producing a long line of members and their officers who conducted the state's business as if party beliefs were important to the function of government. This party system has, at the same time, automatically divided both the Senate and the House between members who had power (in this case, Democrats) and those who had little or no power (in this case, Republicans).

If one belongs to the minority party in either the Missouri House or Senate, one has considerably less power, fewer privileges and less influence than members of the majority. Before we accept such a process as being both natural and desirable, we should probably assess whether there is a real and substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans in both chambers. Is there a Democratic policy in dealing with treatment centers for substance abusers or for dealing with the state's growing crime rate? If there is a discernible variance, we have yet to note it.

The differences in the General Assembly are over one principal point: whether the member was elected on the Democratic or Republican ticket. From that point, the difference is that a member of the majority party enjoys full citizenship, can expect reasonable support for whatever legislation he or she introduces, and receives the full perquisites of office. The minority member, in contrast, enjoys only partial citizenship, has little or no expectation of getting legislation enacted without assistance from a majority party member, and receives almost no prerogatives, including satisfactory and adequate office machinery and offices that are somewhat larger than a clothes closet.

The Senate is, thankfully, less partisan than the House, although this is due less to a spirit of independence than the comradeship created within a small group of individuals. The upper chamber is, nonetheless, organized and driven by the members of the majority party, with minority senators expected to follow their lead.

It would not be an exaggeration to observe that at least 95 percent of all business transacted by both legislative chambers has absolutely nothing to do with political parties or political philosophy. There are large numbers of Democrats who are more conservative than moderate Republicans, and there are GOP members who are far more liberal than the average Democrat, yet we pretend that it is somehow essential that our state legislative process be driven by political ideology that never ever addresses how Missouri ' s problems are to be solved.

In the case of the executive branch, the record of a governor of Missouri is written not by his political faith but by his individual beliefs and priorities and, perhaps most important of all, the amount of discretionary money available during his term in office. Governors are almost always judged by how much they are able to spend for needed programs, not whether they subscribe to a political philosophy that is only devised to meet national circumstances. Even during campaigns, platforms of state candidates are driven not by political philosophy but by solutions offered for the concerns of the state ' s citizens .

Pretending that political affiliation is a critical consideration in meeting the needs of Missouri 's 5.1 million citizens is not only fallacious, but bizarre. There is no partisan answer to efficient, effective government, yet we habitually choose up sides because we have been led to believe that is the only way state government can function. It would govern much better without either political party in control.

~Jack Stapleton is a Kennett columnist who keeps tabs on government.