ONE NATION UNDER GOD -- AND UNDER TWO POLITICAL PARTIES

One definition of a cynic is anyone who reads the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and then reflects on how political parties distort so many of its principles.

Bear with me, as I repeat these principles, written 213 years ago at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Excluding the testaments of the Bible, there are probably no more inspiring words ever written in any document created by man. These are the phrases that have helped fashion our remarkable system of governance, and they are words that are almost never found in any other national constitution in the world.

Consider the diminishment of these phrases in light of an increasingly strident national government stemming from the intense warfare carried out by the Democratic and Republican parties. In polite academic circles, it is customary to refer to this political turmoil as "divided government," but the description does no justice to the divisive forces that are at work in the United States today, thanks to both political parties, their leaders and their leave-no-prisoners policies.

Can anyone name an example, either recent or long past, in which either party has sought to create a more perfect union? The goal means joining one's opponents to implement policies that will create a more cohesive nation, one populated by citizens who are eager to forget differences and work toward the common good. Can anyone remember when this very first constitutional principle was ever suggested, much less attempted? The very last time may have been 59 years ago when America faced the prospect of fighting major wars in Europe and Asia, with the possible consequences being our total enslavement by the armed forces of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Subsequent wars Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo were treated more as partisan actions than unified goals.

Have Republicans and Democrats sought to "establish justice" without partisanship? The answer can be found in the current scare tactics, designed to elicit support, about the power of the next President to name at least four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Parties play on fear that opponents will be able to dictate the course of justice if they win in November, with the implication once again being that political victories create partisan spoils. This concept pervades all down the line of institutional justice systems, including federal appellate courts, district courts, federal attorneys (prosecutors), extending to such enforcement agencies as the FBI, ATF, IRS and other policing agencies.

Is it really true, we ask, that politics plays such a role in establishing and dispensing justice in America? Ask former Gov. Warren Hearnes, who wound up on a Republican president's hit list and underwent two years of politically motivated harassment before being exonerated, or former Attorney General Bill Webster, a Republican who went to prison for doing what scores of other state officials in both parties had done for years before him.

Even such a fundamental aim as the one to "insure domestic tranquility" is at danger when the political partisans begin attacking each other. When the heat of the Elian Gonzalez case was most intense, citizens were trying to decide what was best for this small child while partisans injected their own agenda into the incident. The battle became so politicized that it was impossible to achieve peaceful agreements, particularly after the threat of congressional hearings was sounded. Does anyone believe they will be held if partisans decide there is no advantage to be gained? All of this to determine the denouement of a political charade that could have been resolved by following laws already in place.

Are Democrats and Republicans concerned about the preamble's promise to "promote the general welfare"? I'll let you decide while I list some of the pressing contemporary issues that seem unable to get agreement between the two parties: fully funding Social Security, reducing the debilitating national public debt, programs to improve public education particularly at the K-12 levels, assuring the rights of persons seeking medical assistance, correcting the overly high prices charged by pharmaceutical monopolies, protecting the environment and natural resources for future generations, meeting the high costs of care facilities for elderly citizens, overcoming negative conditions facing the nation's agricultural industry, improving air travel safety, overcoming increasing housing needs by a growing population, programs assuring increased safety of school children and the general public at large, and some method to ensure that election campaigns meet the vision of our founders.

Each of the issues listed, each designed to promote the general welfare, has been engulfed in some form of dispute between Democrats and Republicans. In some cases, with resolution viewed virtually impossible, the solution has been postponed, while in other cases, the partisan struggle has become the centerpiece of the dilemma, thus extinguishing any hope of protecting and promoting the general welfare.

Finally, the preamble suggests that our government will secure for each of us the "blessings of liberty," however difficult that task may be. Perhaps the greatest blessing of all would be the demise of increasingly discordant politics.

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