NO CONTROVERSY EQUALS LOUSY GOVERNMENT

Missourians have only three months to choose the two nominees for the most important office in their state, and at this point in the process there is little to indicate voters have been given much reason to do more than close their eyes and blindly choose a candidate. When the filing deadline ended the other day, there were 12 applicants to run the biggest business in Missouri, five Republicans and seven Democrats. From this 12 candidate roster, voters are expected to choose two finalists who will battle it out until November for the privilege of leading the state into the dawn of a new century.

Let's start by making the choice process slightly easier, since among the 12 who filed, there are in reality only five who stand any chance at all of being selected by the two political parties. Three are Republicans and two are Democrats, and we trust the remainder will forgive our pragmatism for suggesting that they merely expended the $200 filing fee for the right of their heirs to boast that they were related to a one-time gubernatorial candidate. It may not be a high price to pay for obscure political immortality, for others have certainly paid more for less.

The five candidates with valid credentials, while all self-nominated at this point, are nevertheless accredited because each have some recognizable qualifications for higher office; that is, they have some record of public service that accords them political validity. Each has held an important state or municipal post and has compiled a record that is substantial enough to recommend to party voters. This is not the same as saying each is qualified to be governor, for it would be unusual in any campaign to have a random number of candidates that are all equally fitted to hold a highly critical office. Given the state of our state, perhaps it is just as well that we count ourselves fortunate to have five reasonably qualified persons on the two-party list. There have been many elections in the past when the state has been much less fortunate.

Although similar claims have been made over the years, it is important for Missourians to recognize how critical the 1992 gubernatorial election is for all of us. This is not just any election, any more than these are just ordinary times. If the 1992 campaign is treated as business-as-usual, Missouri faces the prospect of becoming a permanent underachiever among the 50 states, and if that classification is realized then millions of us, not to mention our children and their children, face a miserably bleak and unhappy future. This is simply an unacceptable fate and each of us has a serious obligation to see that it does not come about.

For a number of reasons, not all of them the fault of our leaders, Missouri in 1992 finds itself stymied by an unusual number of problems. We face serious obstacles in public and higher education, welfare and health programs, economic development, decaying towns and cities and, just as importantly, a gradual diminishment of the quality of life of far too many of our citizens and families. This is not the complete litany of challenges we face, but it will suffice for the moment, while we retain the right to expand the list in the future.

We think it is accurate to note that thus far in this campaign, there has been little of substance, and this is due more to the form of political contests than an unwillingness of the candidates to discuss and promulgate substantive ideas and programs. The modern-day demands of candidates to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars even to be considered for election is a problem beyond the parameters of the current campaign, and the candidates have thus far devoted most of their attention to their own political treasuries. This is understandable, but at some point it must stop if voters are to be given the serious discussion and debate they deserve and must have this year. Within a very short time, the singular devotion toward fund-raising must come to a halt and the candidates must get down to the more important agenda item of full discussion. Candidates who are still busily engaged in raising funds one month from now will no longer have the time to provide voters with their ideas and proposals on moving the state out of the ditch of mediocrity. Their campaigns will have become mired in counting contributions, which is not the purpose of political campaigns for governor.

Voters need and deserve serious discussions on how Missouri will finance its public schools at a level that will assure future generations of superior knowledge and training.

Voters need and deserve the candidates' ideas on how to establish nationally recognized colleges and universities other than the present methods of reducing faculties and eliminating academic programs.

Voters need and deserve to know how the candidates propose to revise and improve the state's health and welfare delivery systems so that the growing list of ignored and neglected Missourians becomes shorter rather than longer.

Voters need and deserve to hear candidates' proposals on how to increase job opportunities in decaying urban areas and declining outstate regions. If McDonald's is still Missouri's largest employer in 1996, then the state will have wasted four years and will find itself totally unprepared to enter the next century.

Voters need and deserve to be offered valid proposals for making their local, county and state governments as efficient as possible, thereby assuring citizens that their tax dollars are not being wasted or diverted to programs that are not absolutely essential to the common welfare.

We believe that if voters don't receive these kinds of recommendations and proposals from the five candidates, then they have a right to reject them. The candidate who believes he can ignore these problems while devoting his time and resources to soliciting support, can be expected to perform in much the same manner if he's elected to office. And the candidate who avoids controversial issues during the campaign can be counted upon to avoid these same items once he takes office.

Avoiding controversy may be smart politics, but it is lousy governance and a luxury Missouri can no longer afford.