WHATEVER HAPPED TO THIS PART: BY THE PEOPLE?

KENNETT, Mo. -- Platforms of America's political parties are essentially outlines, both specific and general, of what their authors believe constituents want from their government. When some of the best politicians available sit down to fashion the campaign's platform, and thus attempt to define the reason for supporting their party, it can be assumed they have enough knowledge, as well as voter feedback, to spell out what the party wants even intends to deliver to America. Which, incidentally, might well be the reason these declarations are read by only a handful of citizens even remotely connected to any philosophy, much less bona fide card-carrying members of the Republican, Democratic, Reform or Green parties.

The candidates who run on these platforms, whether they are seeking the presidency or a state governorship or membership in a legislature, strive mightily to defend their aims and aspirations, oftentimes because they are afraid they might lose a vote or two in the event some independent minded voter took the time and effort to read the details. Politicians can spend a great deal of energy trying to defend these platforms, which in the final analysis is rather foolish, considering the lack of interest among the electorate. Despite this erosion of comprehension on the part of the public, platforms represent an honest effort to spell out the philosophy of a party, which in turn can reasonably be expected to trigger supportive action by the candidates selected.

So-called lifelong Democrats or Republicans will often say for public consumption that they stand "100 percent" behind their group's platform, without having read one word of it. Thus we have in this millennium a readily accepted political creed that only a handful wrote and only a handful ever take time to read, outlining what the government would do for the nation's voters regardless of whether citizens want these promises delivered or buried in the musty archives of some office in Washington.

This process is what is sometimes referred to as "government for the people," a kind of philosophical wish-list that has the luxury of not being a mandatory agenda but one undecided voters can take or reject at their will. One should not dismiss these promises as partisan hyperbole, for if the only function of political parties is to choose a candidate who has already won nomination by winning a majority of a minority, then the parties are even less important than is assumed. Platform are testament to the permanence, if not the validity, of Republicans, Democrats, Reformers or whoever.

Having said this, one can reasonably ask if the nation's political parties fulfill their role of "government for the people" where is the process that meets the promise of "government by the people"? We don't talk a great deal about this part of Lincoln's clarion call for freedom and democracy, even though it is accepted as an essential component of our republic. Even the preamble to our Missouri Constitution echoes this declaration: "In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles on which our government is founded, we declare ... ."

It's not that we have trouble asserting our rights: We Americans are hyper-activists when we tell politicians and their parties what we want them to do. Newspaper letters to the editor are almost exclusively dedicated to the assertion of someone's rights, real or imagined.

And we're even happy to proclaim that the historic documents of the Revolutionary and Civil wars are divinely inspired ideals that must be followed without question.

Except, dear citizen, we more or less skip over the part about our responsibility or government by the people. We don't assume responsibility, because the politicians are happy to relieve us of that "burden." We don't acknowledge we have any individual responsibility. It's only a collective one, and we're just one among many so don't hold us accountable.

What might our part of "government by the people" entail, you ask? Well, let's make it as simple as possible, since there's no list of what a "good citizen" must do, but we all have a pretty good idea, don't we?

We know, for example, that we need to be as fully informed as possible about the candidates, about the party platforms and promises, about what courses will be taken if the candidates and parties receive a majority of the votes. We need to know what direction an administration, be it national or state, will take in both domestic and foreign affairs. Even after the acceptance speeches of Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, I suspect few could list many specific details of what each said, promised or pledged. Most of us went to bed early when it came time to listen to both candidates strive to get the delegates out of their seats and cheering mightily for the audiences watching on television. If the candidates failed to deliver, what can be said for the millions of citizens who also failed to listen and to follow the dictates of "government by the people"?

It is reasonably safe to say that a vast majority of us want something from the government. We may not want a handout or capital gains relief or tax cut, but all of us would welcome some benefit, even if we narrow it down to something as nebulous as "continued prosperity" or "better schools." There's nothing wrong with this, for these are manifestations of expectations, something we should all hope for.

But since many of us don't have a clue about what the candidates have said, what the party platforms promise, what we can expect from our elected officials and since many of us don't even take the trouble to go to the public polls to vote how on earth can this be "government by the people"?

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