MISSOURI WATCH: THERE ARE NO MONOPOLIES ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

In public governance, there have always been two worlds, and they haven't always been Democratic and Republican despite the beliefs of residents in both camps. From the earliest days of the Republic, Americans have defined themselves by issues they viewed as important, and since there are almost always two sides to every question, we have ultimately chosen to divide ourselves by political faith.

The very first arguments in the Continental Congress centered on the basic question of whether our new nation should have a weak federalist government or one with reasonable powers to perform certain needed functions. Peripheral to this dilemma were such questions as whether a central government should be responsible for national defense and whether this venue should coin money and establish a central bank.

When these issues were eventually resolved, not to everyone's satisfaction it should be noted, other questions arose that served to separate us, including differences over protective tariffs, slavery and immigration. It is interesting to note, and should be recalled from time to time, that the divisions were ideological, not political. We did not automatically choose sides to do battle with the issues; we utilized political parties to further our personal beliefs and arguments for a particular cause or conviction.

As basic arguments were eventually resolved, even if we went to war to settle them, the issues began to diminish, not only because America had grown wiser but because the separations had become narrower.

It was at this point, perhaps moments before entering the 20th century, that political parties grew in power and prominence. By the start of this century, America had become more sophisticated than it had been at the beginning of the era. The central government had become a fact of life, tariffs were accepted in specific amounts for their economic bargaining power, the central treasury was not only a fact of life but a necessity and-slavery was abolished even if its effects were not. Other dilemmas were back-burner, for while they were troublesome and unanimity was not possible, they were not of sufficient importance to divide us as did more critical issues.

This absence of overriding national conflict is why the two major parties were able to ascend in prominence, far beyond their potential for resolution. Indeed, it was this inability to resolve issues that attracted the party faithful, for we Americans have always had contention in our genes, a condition that was first noted by King George III back in 1776.

If we were no longer divided by the need for a central bank, then we could argue over such lesser matters as federal deposit insurance, branch banking and how to control the rate of inflation. The political parties provided us with an excuse to advance our prejudices, since less vital issues are almost more complicated, and difficult to comprehend, than those of major national import. Political divisions have always been bitter because they have often been relatively unimportant.

Political parties, consciously or not, provided a basic need in a nation as polyglot as America had become. It is absolutely impossible to mix a hundred different nationalities and find universal consensus, for not only are backgrounds different, so are religions, economic perceptions and personal values. With the convenience of political parties, we could divide among ourselves and still govern a very complex nation.

This political convenience helps to explain why we have such a divergence within the parties themselves. In the case of slavery, the South was united against the industrial and moral forces in the North, an area where the political party of choice was pre-Republican because of an earlier advocacy of high tariffs. When the South embraced the Democratic Party, its members were faithful as long as the issue still remained a part of their environment. Thus we have seen the once-solid South drift away from its earlier devotion as integration laws pounded the last nails into Jim Crow's coffin.

There are liberals in today's Republican Party and there are conservatives in today's Democratic Party, providing us with a perfect example of ideological schizophrenia. There are Democrats who support more clauses in Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" than some Republicans. The nation might be more comfortable with a total demarcation of ideas and party loyalty, and this seems to be occurring in certain areas and particularly among Democrats-turning-Republican. There's nothing wrong with this, for it makes both parties a little more honest and a little more responsible to their constituents.

The error to be avoided is buying the political line Americans must be one or the other. The parties have a long record, some of it proud and some despicable, but we're not Democratic Americans or Republican Americans. There are no constitutional requirements for partisanship, only citizenship.

Rather we are Americans who don't always agree on every issue partisan mad dogs seek to inject into the public debate. We can be adherents of Ross Perot and be Democrats, or we can believe that Colin Powell is another Dwight Eisenhower and still be a traditional Republican.

The point is that as more and more national problems are addressed, there is less and less need for us to follow the paths of our own political group. Instead, we can become independent of ideologies that infect our parties for only a short time and then die for lack of support and reasonableness. To recommend that we agree with the best principles advocated by both parties is to heed the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who early on worried aloud about collective judgment created by partisan fever. "We must never," Jefferson wrote, "rule for the common benefit by giving our heart and soul to one group while ignoring the wisdom of those in opposition."

It may be time for responsible citizens to heed Jefferson's admonition. Perhaps it is now appropriate that we begin to act on what many have long known: partisans on neither side of the aisle have a monopoly on good government.

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