MISSOURI WATCH: SOME IN POLITICS THINK THEY ARE THERE FOR EVER

There has always been an air of temporary permanence about American politics, although it has more often than not eluded those who happened to win at the last election. America has been holding elections since 1782 and we have not in a single instance chosen candidates to occupy public office for the remainder of their lifetimes.

Try telling this to the Democrats who hold majorities in the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate or the Republicans who now control both chambers of Congress. Like your favorite dog who believes you will never return even if you're only running an errand, for some reason, politicians believe they will occupy their elected job ad infinitum. They never do, but they seldom admit to their transient status.

This homing compulsion is never more evident than during the early months of presidential and gubernatorial election years. The favored winners in the spring carry their convictions right up to the final moments of November. Thus Republicans today speak confidently of retaining control in Congress, while Democrats are unrealistically buoyed by early polls showing their man in the White House defeating his certain Republican opponent. That's the conventional wisdom in Washington, and the same delusional conclusion has already been reached in Jefferson City.

The problem with conventional wisdom is its total absence of factual data, namely the tabulation of election-night returns, making it anything but wise. The reason is quite simple: today's conditions may not exist by the time the polls open next November 5. In fact, it would be nothing short of a miracle if the current mood of the voters comes close to resembling how the electorate feels seven months from now.

Seemingly always overlooked is the one political fact that has been proved over and over again: elections are cyclical events that move at their own speed and in their own direction, without input or guidance from anyone. If you don't believe it, ask Tom Dewey, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George Bush. These are just a few of the many who have borne the brunt of conditions beyond the control of anyone and who either benefited or lost as a result.

When Carter was beginning the 1980 campaign against Ronald Reagan, he was clearly the favorite, remaining so until the White House seemed transfixed by irrational Iranian revolutionaries. When Bush began the 1992 campaign, he was the hero of the war against Iraq and none of the candidates for the Democratic nomination came even close to the incumbent's approval rating. Carter and Bush were viewed as almost certain winners until the votes were counted and the public had spoken.

In Jefferson City it is not uncommon to hear someone spouting the margin of victory Mel Carnahan will receive in this year's election with Margaret Kelly. Anyone who buys this kind of blind optimism is probably an excellent prospect for buying stock in the old Boonville bridge. Granted, Carnahan is the leader in virtually every poll that's been made to date, but polls don't elect and inaugurate public officials. Voters choose and, thank heavens, their votes still count for something even in this era of take-no-prisoners television advertising.

If the experts will pause for only a second to examine some facts, they might recognize their delusions. Bill Clinton is no pillar of political popularity, as witness the failed re-election campaign after his first term as governor of Arkansas. His popularity ratings have been more erratic than his marriage vows and he has yet to demonstrate the kind of solid leadership that wins total public confidence. If the voters go looking for an experienced, solid, senior statesman than the name on the White House mail box will be changing next January, and this is particularly true if the U.S. faces a serious foreign challenge or if the economy slips a few points and the jobless rolls begin to climb.

In Missouri, the so-called experts seem to forget that Margaret Kelly lost her race for lieutenant governor by less than 38,000 votes while George Bush was losing the state by nearly a quarter of a million votes. If you believe the GOP has a fair chance of taking control of the next Missouri House or Senate, then you have to believe the Republican state ticket has far more power than it has been credited with by the usual army of armchair campaign managers.

Harry Truman won the presidency in 1948 because workers were happy with their jobs, retail and wholesale business was good, the federal budget was balanced and savings accounts were increasing. Do you think Harry would have made it in 1948, given the conditions that exist in 1996?

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