SYSTEM IS BROKE, BUT IT CAN BE FIXED

KENNETT, Mo. -- The public can reasonably assume that the most important subject in Missouri's state capital is which of the two major political parties will control the distribution of legislative seats for the next decade.

Others can reasonably conclude the state's most critical issue focuses on which party controls the internal workings of the General Assembly.

Many, perhaps most, of our recently elected officials have devoted thousands of hours to these subjects, with much time yet to be dedicated to how our governmental machinery should work until the next election which, by the way, happens to be next year.

The irony is that the various components of our representative government are so dependent on the answers to these questions that the men and women we elected last November have little or no time to devote to the issues that define our government as an instrument for the welfare of all the people rather than a playpen for political partisans.

As a result of this, we are left with a government not of the people, by the people and for the people, but a political system that enables partisans to continue fighting over their often picayune differences from one election to another.

I happen to believe that it is this unintended transformation of a democracy that has disillusioned the vast majority of voters and has made our electoral process a caricature of the Founding Fathers' vision.

We are correct, I believe, in scoring the high cost of campaigns and other electoral impediments, but the root cause is not the manner in which we determine our elected representatives, but in the absence of productive work for the common welfare that follows.

Indeed, if the public finds merit in the final product of a legislature, the amount of money spent by opponents of these members will hardly affect our desire to continue the progress made.

Voters have tried over countless elections to select candidates whose public service has been superior, and all the campaign-reform laws passed cannot change this determination. Money can corrupt the process, but it cannot change how voters perceive their elected officials. Money spent to defeat a dedicated, productive public servant is money wasted on a public that is still smarter than the best campaign strategists candidates can buy.

When a candidate says he wants to represent us in the state legislature or as one of our six statewide officials or as a member of the state's delegation to Congress, his or her plea is usually, until quite recently, taken as a pledge that the candidate wants to pursue the interests of his constituents.

In more recent years, this declaration has meant less and less until it is now often viewed as nothing more than a mere job application. Voters take it for granted that once elected the candidate will conscientiously show up for work and go through the motions of answering constituent mail.

But that is about all the assumptions today's constituents are entitled to make.

One of the first duties of a new officeholder is that he align himself with one of the two major parties, even if there is only partial agreement with the group's election promises.

Certainly the second major duty is seeing to it that peer recognition is sufficient to guarantee support for the next election, which can be as early as two years and, at the most, a mere six years.

All of this political staging process takes priority over the jobs the candidate promised he would tend to if elected, not to mention his alignment with those who command the most votes and thus control the public records of their followers. While discussing this litany of political progression, you may have noted that the elected official has had little opportunity to pursue the issues that enhanced his candidacy, and in all fairness, he or she has had little chance to pursue this goal or even give it serious thought.

This absence of time for thought and action can be reflected in the quality of legislation that has increasingly become more noticeable, with little consideration given to the problems most troubling to constituents.

The pre-filing process often yields the best considered legislation for resolving major state problems. Bills that follow are often offered to reward campaign supporters or correct earlier errors of judgment. The problems the public considers to be important are given short shrift, if that, while special interest needs are often given consideration far beyond their public worth.

Examine the public-concern priorities of the Missouri General Assembly this session and you will quickly realize that, except in rare instances, little thought has been given to the everyday problems that face Missourians, problems that have long been troubling, disruptive or counterproductive. Or all three.

Let me cite some examples. In all of the measures proposed for consideration this year, not one outlines a new way to combat drug use, although some give needed attention to new drugs that have proved dangerous. If there is one area in which states should be extremely active, it is in combating illegal drugs, yet our officials selected last November are proposing nothing new, just more of the same. The drug crisis is real; our solutions should also be.

The same outlook is true for improving our children's education, creating new job opportunities, dealing with chronically deprived areas, reforming outmoded governments, meeting much-dreaded health concerns and countless other long-standing but politically abrogated challenges.

These disregarded concerns are a sign of stagnation, indifference, laziness, omission and inadequate dedication to resolutions. We need something much better if our political system is to work the way it was intended to work and in the way it was envisioned by the geniuses who brilliantly devised our constitutional system of self-government.

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