MISSOURI WATCH: UNCARING VOTERS=UNGLUED CANDIDATES

Missourians glaringly displayed their indifference to public policy and governance when only 16 percent of the state's eligible voters turned out to cast ballots in the August primary elections. Ignoring both their responsibility as citizens as well as their responsibility to imprint public policy, voters in the state exercised their unconstitutional right to refrain from participating in representative government.

In recent weeks, the consequences of this electoral inertia have become painfully clear: the candidates who emerged from a lackluster primary turnout have obviously concluded that nothing short of a Jerry Springer-type campaign will generate interest sufficient to assure anything above a one-third response from the 3.4 million registered voters in the state.

There are several conclusions this year's candidates and their political parties could draw from the public's response thus far: (1.) voters are indifferent to the electoral process itself; (2) the public is not inclined to greet with any great enthusiasm any of the candidates, particularly at the state level, primarily because John Q. Public has made little effort to educate himself about their qualifications; and (3.) voters have little understanding of the importance of their interest in shaping not only future candidates and campaigns, such as the one we're now experiencing, but the direction of future programs and policies.

A voting public that is viewed as indifferent to the candidate selection process will obviously be characterized as one indifferent to state and federal policies. What's even worse is the perfectly logical conclusion by elected officials that neither the quality nor the effectiveness of their work means anything to the general public. If John Q. Public isn't really concerned about the quality of his elected representatives in Jefferson City and Washington, D.C., then logically how could he be concerned about the integrity, equity and efficiency of public policies in those two capitals?

This year's campaign for the U.S. Senate seat is one of the worst in recent memories, and in all fairness, the candidates are not entirely to blame. The public has its share of culpability, unrecognized by many who seem to be in some condition of denial emanating from numerous sources, including the sexual escapades at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Viewing the results of the August primary, as well as the prevailing psychology of the public, Kit Bond and Jay Nixon have obviously examined these components more closely than anyone, including political columnists. The conclusion seemingly reached by both men is that citizens aren't really very interested in politics, which they view as corrupt, or the prevailing issues involved, which are usually viewed as minor considerations in almost every election.

If the public doesn't care and isn't really interested, then candidates must adopt tactics that will attract Missourians to the polls on November 3. We have regressed to what some call the Tabloid Age, when nothing short of nuclear verbal attacks will attract voters' attention and interest. Incumbent Bond injected the dismemberment of his opponent's grandmother, while challenger Nixon injected the repugnant Willie Horton tactic of his opponent's commutation of murderers' prison sentences. Neither candidate would normally stoop to such depths were his words greeted with public scrutiny and study, but lacking both, Nixon and Bond have adopted the role of circus clowns who seek notice from a crowd of bored onlookers.

There will be considerable difference between six years of Kit Bond in the U.S. Senate and six years of Jay Nixon, but voters will never be afforded an opportunity to consider those differences because the public has already signaled its indifference and disregard. Just as different will be the terms of either Chuck Pierce or Claire McCaskill as State Auditor, yet there will be only peripheral debate of broader and more vital issues because voters have little or no interest in them.

Furthermore there will be wide discrepancies in how there state is treated in the national capital if a majority of the delegation is Republican or Democratic. If you think not, then examine the concessions gained from the White House for districts represented by Democrats and the special favors granted by a GOP-controlled Congress to districts with Republican congressmen. If this runs against your idea of fairness, as it most assuredly does mine, then join those who counsel against apathy, ignorance and outrageous partisanship.

The chances are better than 50 to 1 that voters in your Missouri House district have heard little or not discussion of where our state is heading, what policies it should adopt and where we need to go in the next century. Campaign dialogue at the legislative level is most always reduced to slogans rather than meaningful policy discussions. Such dialogue is usually without logic, particularly by candidates who have spent no time in Jefferson City and who have virtually no idea how state government is structured or functions.

If voters insist on accepting mere slogans that candidates believe will win support as valid discussion of legitimate concerns, then we will be shackled with elected officials who lack both the capacity to govern and the understanding to resolve some very difficult dilemmas facing us as a state and as a nation.

An indifferent public means we get mud-slinging campaigns and muddled candidates who have no idea what they're talking about. Until voters recognize that they have a greater obligation to democracy than simply going to the polls two or three times every other year, then we will continue to have the same kind of unresponsive and sometimes irresponsible governments we have today.

Don't you agree that we deserve better?

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