MISSOURI WATCH: THE QUESTION AMERICANS MUST ASK...

Fifty years ago I would never have guessed that life occurring then would be fondly remembered by anyone, including myself. America had finished World War II and those of us who felt ourselves behind were making plans to get up to speed, finishing college, making plans for marriage and presumably carefully charting our careers, such as they might be.

Whatever assurance we had in completing our military service was mitigated by an almost frantic searching for personal reassurance, and as we looked around for hopeful signs, many were rather hard-pressed to find them. At times such as these, it falls upon society as a whole to provide the positive signals that the future will be better than the past and that the problems of today will be resolved by tomorrow.

Fifty years ago Missourian Harry Truman was beginning the first year of his elected term as president, Congress was starting to change in character as its members moved from right to left, and Jefferson City was beginning a long skein of Democratic governors that would not end for more than two decades. The nation was changing in other ways as well, adjusting to conflict in Korea. America was rebuilding a war-torn Europe, expending billions of dollars to help rehabilitate the countries of our allies as well as our enemies.

It was, despite the misgivings that were buried deep inside of us from the greatest war in history, a time for hope, if not confidence, a time for dreams, if not bliss.

In recent years I have occasionally wondered whether later generations would make the sacrifices that were required of those who found themselves trapped in periods of serious economic stress and threats of military defeat. Lacking an answer, I have always opted for the positive side, bolstering my optimism with the logic that human valor is not the exclusive franchise of a single generation. Sacrifices are bravely made when the circumstances demand them, I tell myself, and I'm usually half way convinced.

The obstacle to a satisfactory answer is the absence of life-or-death circumstances that were present in the 1930s and 1940s. Today's society recognizes cultural, social and economic dilemmas, but most often these are seen not as permanent fixtures but as conditions that will be resolved, perhaps more by accident rather than design, sometime in the future. Indeed, if society is viewed as facing challenges, a great many of us feel as if the resolution is hardly our responsibility.

The evidence of this view is overwhelming. Americans readily express their pride in the governments they have been handed but they have taken great pains to express their displeasure with those who run them. We like Washington as a city, preferring that it be inhabited by anyone we might have voted for in the last election. We admire the city of Jefferson in our own state, marveling at the marble palaces that make it a beautiful and awe inspiring community, but we know little to nothing about those who occupy a multitude of power positions within its limits. I would wager that not 1 our of 1,000 Missourians could name the director of the state's largest and most expensive department, unable to even identify which agency that might be.

The inability to display the slightest scintilla of knowledge about either Dr. Gary Stangler or the Department of Social Services is treated by most as indifferently as a question about the depth of the deepest portion of the Lake of Ozarks. Today's society expresses no concern over its lack of knowledge of government, not because we are ashamed of our ignorance but because we believe, not because we are ashamed of our ignorance but because we believe, quite incorrectly I should add, that it has no relevance in our lives. Generations a half century ago recognized such views were wrong since their lives were directly tied to the actions -- or inactions -- of state and federal governments and those who ran them.

If one were forced to choose between these two conflicting perceptions, the preferable one would no doubt be that citizens were both informed and concerned with the conduct of their governments, even if public policy and its ministrations are complex, difficult and at times even messy. It calls for sacrifice, dedication and concern for the common welfare, and it seldom offers a clear and logical solution. The obstacles to true democracy are indeed vaunting, so much so that any and all volunteers, regardless of incapabilities and shortcomings, are eagerly welcomed and encouraged.

If my neighbors don't care about how their governments are run and what decisions are made on behalf of everyone, then why should I worry? The answer is not unlike the cartoon character Alfred E. Neuman of "Mad" magazine: What, me worry?

Of course we're not going to worry. We have other fish to fry, our careers to pursue, our children to raise, our car payments to make and ourselves to entertain. We have neither the time nor inclination to worry. It should be noted that an increasing number in society lacks the knowledge to worry.

Contemporary attitudes imply that previous generations were not faced with today's challenges of occupying the mainstream. "Life was simpler then" has been used ad nauseum to excuse modern disinterest and indifference. We have done a good job convincing ourselves that the problems of today are unique and never confronted those who came before us.

Would that today's society could return, but briefly, to the 1930s and 1940s, when our nation was buckling from monumental challenges, from depression to invasion. Perhaps we need to wonder what would have become of this glorious America if citizens had responded to their responsibilities with the obdurate indifference evidenced in 1999.

We pray America will never have to confront that question tomorrow or the tomorrows of the future.

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