MISSOURI WATCH: WHAT DID VOTERS REALLY SAY?

Republicans and Democrats alike are still responding to the message sent Washington on November 8. The responses of both parties are interesting, and really not as varied as one might imagine.

Republicans, of course, read the election's tea leaves in light of the specifics outlined in Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America," one of the most effective electoral platforms in years. Whoever dreamed up the GOP "contract," and we suspect it was the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, had a true inspiration.

Democrats, on the other hand, have responded to the November returns with a multitude of mea culpas. President Clinton has said he "got the message," while congressional Democrats have scurried about Capitol Hill trying to adjust their agenda to something resembling the Republicans' promise list, but with enough differences to separate them from the new majority party in Congress.

To justify their existence, political parties must have separate agendas, for if they walked in lock-step with each other, there would be no organizations for them to join and thus no career opportunities. The demise of the early Federalist Party, which found insufficient grounds to continue by virtue of general agreement on major issues of the day, is not lost on modern political institutions. The "advantage" of separate political parties is that they provide two tiers leadership posts, thus enabling twice as many politicians to hold some kind of office in the hierarchy.

But back to the original question: What were voters actually saying when they went to the polls and voted in a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, not to mention a sizable number of new GOP-controlled legislatures? No one knows exactly, but it's possible to arrive at some conclusions on which everyone can agree.

First, the voters supporting Newt Gingrich's idea of America voiced their displeasure with government in general and a Democratically controlled federal government in particular.

Secondly, voters said they wanted some reductions in the size of their government, and while it's impossible to be specific about where they wanted cuts, voters pretty much left that up to the Republicans.

Thirdly, it's reasonably certain that voters wanted to maintain most of the services now being provided by Washington, but they added a caveat to this part of the message: while you're maintaining services, be sure to cut taxes.

It's not certain, however, whether any of these messages are very helpful to our federal officials. Republicans must concentrate on implementing the provisions of their contract, while Democrats are free'to bicker among themselves whether it is nobler to embrace the traditional tenets of the party or more closely emulate the conservatism of the Republicans. Responding to the GOP has pretty much been the order of the day for the White House and the new minority on Capitol Hill. Missouri's Dick Gephardt must have believed so thoroughly in the GOP promises for tax cuts that he preempted his own president's plan by 48 hours, which only shows how disorganized the Democrats have become under Clinton leadership, if that's the proper word for it.

Without being unduly cynical about the messages sent by voters on November 8, it's germane to note that most Americans for most of our history have disliked government. If they hadn't, we would be a part of whatever is left of the British Commonwealth today. We Americans don't like government until we need its services, and while our needs vary, there is a common thread running throughout our democratic philosophy which was first voiced by Thomas Jefferson: "Government must be of sufficient strength to meet the needs of the governed."

We may not like all of the services our local, state and national governments provide, but we are willing to accept those that we beiieve we need or deserve. There's nothing wrong with this, since it displays a certain realism that is not dissipated by foolish idealism, just as long as we recognize the dichotomy it provides.

The danger of interpreting messages is in misreading them. An even greater danger is telling voters what they really meant to say.

~Jack Stapleton is a Kennett columnist for the Southeast Missourian.