MISSOURI WATCH: THE UNSTEADY EVOLUTION OF DEMOCRACY

"All free governments are managed by the combined wisdom and folly of the people." -- President James A. Garfield

The above observation of the 20th president of the United States was probably more accurate in Garfield's lifetime (1831-1881) than today, although this shouldn't be seen as argument that shards of citizen wisdom and folly do not still exert influence. Today's governments do not in reality reject the combined wisdom and folly of voters, but neither do they blindly accept these factors in making decisions.

Thank heavens.

Whether we include taxes, civil rights, law and order, health, public assistance or such issues as national leadership, education, economics, trade and an assortment of related questions, today's average citizen has pat answers for questions that are often so complex that they defy one-sentence summaries. Despite the defiance, those of us who make up what is generically referred to as the "general public" can quickly supply our views and responses with both wisdom and folly.

If citizens were to be polled on the above mentioned subjects, the chances are that our public responses would go something this:

Taxes: All taxes are too high.

Civil Rights: Just enough freedom for minorities to preserve the status quo.

Law and Order: Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Health: Socialized medicine is bad.

Public Assistance: Lazy people make their own poverty.

Political Leadership: A bunch of crooks. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Education: Teachers and administrators aren't doing -their job and have made our kids dumber.

Economics: Big business is evil; small business is good. Sometimes the view is reversed.

Trade: Fine as long as if doesn't cost me my job.

Don't these opinions come pretty close to the average citizen's assessment of state and national problems? Or do most of us, after thoughtful study and contemplation, have more enlightened views about subjects that trigger whatever public response is made when issues are being discussed and decisions must be made?

If I had to choose, I would take the first answer, leaving the second response to moments when public wisdom was more self-evident.

But for reasons having nothing to do with modern technology, a broadening of public education and an unexcelled standard of living, America's founding fathers based our representative government on the concept that each citizen would assume responsibility for his own enlightenment and thus be able to exert intelligent guidance for elected officials.

To be perfectly frank, our Founding Fathers weren't exactly totally honest with us. Their compromises on civil rights, for example, later brought about the most tragic war the country ever fought: the American Civil War. Their exclusion of women's rights, while the prevailing view at the time, was not unknown among more enlightened societies. As for the roles to be played by separate federal and state governments, the early constitutionalists trusted this resolution to be handled by a blanket amendment which said, but certainly did not eventually mean nor later authorize, the vast powers of governance were to remain with the states.

These oversights, as egregious as they were at the time, were overshadowed by the compelling need to achieve sufficient unanimity to give birth to a new nation. Early compromises to permit slavery were governed more by the need to foster economic gain than to preserve the racist beliefs of some early colonists. The federal government's right of coinage was a principle embraced more by expediency than a desire to enhance the concept of national governance.

Excusing whatever early judgment errors were made, however, does not for a moment exculpate public indifference and disinterest in arriving at reasonably intelligent views on current issues. Reasonable men may disagree over broad areas of national concern, and this should be fostered in an effort to gain broader understanding, but issues should not be resolved on the basis of personal whim or citizen prejudice or hidden agendas that are too radical to be revealed.

A former U.S. senator from our state was recently quoted as saying the current president has become a lame duck who is no longer capable of governing with any degree of leadership. A member of the incumbent Missouri governor's party suggests the administration in Jefferson City has lost the confidence of most voters. Neither statement comes with any guarantee of accuracy, yet if citizens are willing to believe our children are unable to pass tests because teachers are indifferent or overpaid, then other assessments can be accepted just as readily. We often buy statements on the credence we give those who make them, rather than arriving at our own conclusions based on solid research and careful consideration.

No one should denigrate purveyors of opposing views merely for the sake of preserving our own biases. If we do, we are perpetuating the folly that President Garfield made note of, while denying the efficacy of citizen wisdom.

Our responsibility as citizens is to achieve wisdom and reject folly. Too often we have done the opposite, and our governments have thus been managed by our collective folly rather than our enlightened wisdom.

The fault rests not with governments but with the governed.

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