Virtue and vice in politics

KENNETT, Mo. -- The great virtue of our uniquely American political system is that it bestows on all citizens the right to choose their leaders, ranging all the way from city halls to the chambers of our federal government.

Some eight decades ago we also began bestowing upon these same blessed citizens the right to propose and promote their own laws and rules through the use of the initiative referendum, but this public voice was only heard every two, four or six years at election time.

The great fault of our political system is that it extends far greater power to the self-described but ill-defined servants of the people, mainly the same officials we have been privileged to choose, far too much power in deciding how the rest of the population is to be governed.

Adding to this ongoing problem accompanying this transfer of extensive power from the governed to the governors is the abdication of the right to participate by the former and the almost automatic assumption of far greater influence by the latter.

This is never more evident than when we associate the history of our nation, our state, our region, our city not by the time encompassed but by the administrations of political leaders. Thus we refer not to the moments of American history from 1993 to 2001 by their significant and historic events but by the name of the single individual occupying the presidency.

The same tracking system is employed in Missouri, where events are identified as having occurred during the "Ashcroft administration" or the "Carnahan years."

Essentially, we track the progress of our governments, even our own lives, by the tenures of one person occupying a single public office. Choose any history book to note the references to major events of mankind, and you'll find these dates defined by the careers of individuals. It's an automatic, virtually didactic reflex, but it serves to empower the governors while reducing the governed to the role of spectators, seldom the participants of history.

Will Durant made reference to this phenomenon in his brilliant "The Lessons of History" but never pursued it as far as I know. That's regrettable, for he might have been able to shed far greater light on it than this poor scribbler.

I became reacquainted with this dilemma when asked a short time ago by an historical group to detail some of the periods in Missouri history in which public opinion had created reforms or changes in the democratic process that stemmed from citizen initiatives.

After spending a great deal of time in researching the assignment, I was forced to conclude that most concepts, most reforms, most improvements in the ways Missourians are governed and live their lives came from the electoral process, not the more democratic initiative one.

My final conclusion was that, although the public had assumed little or no initiative in originating or installing transformations, it had provided an unspoken mood of support for them. This kind of secondary role seemed to be sufficient to create energy among elected leaders to pursue change and, oftentimes, reform.

The problem encountered, making my argument more sterile than I intended, was that oftentimes elected officials interpreted the public's silent resistance as tacit approval and pursued goals that succeeded because they were described as the will of the public. That, of course, is mere mental gibberish, but unfortunately it has many times passed muster in Jefferson City's temples of power.

Moving closer to today's realities, we are experiencing a kind of deja vu all over again (excuse me, Yogi) when we witness programs being advanced in both Washington and our own state capital.

Only the most determined partisans believe last November's voters gave President George W. Bush a mandate to privatize Social Security or bestow nonexistent funds from that program for playing the stock market. Nor were there large-scale rallies for building multibillion-dollar missile systems to intercept all of the weapons now allegedly being produced in secret caves in Afghanistan or North Korea.

As for the seemingly intractable problems facing Missourians, I have yet to hear a thoughtful individual taxpayer give unstinting support for public investment in a privately owned baseball stadium and development complex.

Most of us Missourians are pretty conservative, mostly because we don't have a lot of money, so we have some understandable measure of opposition to giving away our tax collections to build greater revenue for professional athletic teams, be they football, baseball or ice hockey, nor do we have any reason to favor our tax money being spent to revitalize downtown St. Louis, a goal which seems to have been an ongoing project since the Desloge family got off their raft at Laclede's Landing.

On the other hand, being compassionate men, women and children, we believe our state has some role to play in reliving the constant stress of the poor among us, particularly those who have worked hard all their lives and now find themselves with medical, prescription and electrical bills that are sometimes greater than their monthly retirement or assistance checks.

Regardless of whatever initiatives our elected officials eventually take in resolving these, and a great many other problems, most of us have a feeling for what is right and what is wrong, even when our elected officials feel they must evidence "leadership," which is interpreted in the native Missouri language we use to mean "politics."

By the way, in my search for grassroots leadership, I found several instances in which elected officials improved their hearing so much that they actually paid attention to and followed the advice of their constituents. These moments were placed in a chapter I labeled "The Good Years: When Democracy Was Important."

Unfortunately, it's the shortest chapter in my report.

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