PROBLEMS FOR MISSOURI STEM FROM DIVERSITY

Missouri's steadfast tradition of political, civic and institutional conservatism has long fascinated the state's political scientists and others who seriously study the historical anatomy of a region that likes to call itself the "Heart of America."

What is there about this 69,697 square miles of land and water, located almost dead center in the 48 mainland states, that drives our abiding and unshakable faith in moving cautiously and slowly to meet the needs of five million citizens?

What is it that compels Missourians to hold firmly to the belief, some would call it a religious doctrine, that major state needs should not be addressed until they become major, even debilitating, problems?

At least some political scientists who study the mores of Missouri attribute the state's hesitancy in addressing major concerns to the clearly definable, separate and quite different regions that make up our state. While Missouri has both the usual urban and rural divisions, it also has subgroups within these areas.

While both are urban, it would be hard to find two more diverse metropolitan areas than St. Louis and Kansas City. They may resemble each other in size and unique locations adjoining neighboring states, but their agendas, outlooks and goals are often at odds. Indeed, at times the only apparent commonality is size and the conviction that their mutually shared parochial paranoia is real and justified.

Outstate Missouri is as fragmented as the large cities. Much of northern Missouri still retains the prairie philosophy that holds fast to the concepts of independence, industry and isolation. Over-development is not a word one would use to describe this large area of the state. While blessed with an abundance of natural resources, its residents have followed the ways of their ancestors, few of whom could be classified as entrepreneurs.

On the other hand, the southwest region, with Springfield as its capital, has sought its progress in other fields, including tourism and industrial development, while the southeast portion of the state has seemed to be a varying blend of the other two regions.

A fourth area, unlike the others, is the Bootheel, which in reality is the start of the Mississippi delta and which in its heart of hearts is plantation oriented, economically, socially and politically.

With all of these differences and divisions, it is possible to conclude that total agreement on the future of Missouri is not only difficult but perhaps impossible to achieve. And it often has been. Statewide issues are seldom greeted with universal agreement, not unusual given the divergent heritages and even divergent aspirations found within our state.

Using state money to end de facto segregation in urban public schools does not find a sympathetic outstate audience, while state money for community development is often viewed as wasted in the impacted big-city neighborhoods.

Returning to the questions first asked at the start of this piece, it is now possible to get at least some understanding of why the needs of citizens are so slowly met and why problems are not instantly solved. Getting agreement between two urban areas and several outstate regions is daunting enough, but efforts to achieve accord from all these groups to gain a majority are often difficult and sometimes even impossible. Since determined, unified effort is an essential of progress, it may be accurate to say that Missouri is fortunate to have progressed at all.

The task of moving the state ahead is, despite popular view, not always enhanced or aided by the political process. There are those who still cling to the misconception that new governors, new state officeholders and new legislators bring change and progress in the delivery of public services would accrue. There are others who hold that all roadblocks to progress would be eliminated with a sea of new faces in the General Assembly. These views are as inaccurate as they are wistful.

Progress in achieving excellence in public services has been as elusive in one term of office as another. Elections that elevate new faces and different personalities have repeatedly failed to deliver long-promised changes. The exhilarating illusion of progress at the start of a term of office is soon transformed to the more realistic perception of status quo, primarily because the expectations for change were unrealistic.

They were unreal because there is so little recognition of the valid reasons why change is so difficult to achieve. If there is to be change, progress must become the first goal of citizens from all areas of this diffused and diversified state.