Running for president, former Alabama Gov. George Wallace would delight his hard-scrabble audience by declaring "There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two." The line always drew applause, shouts and whoops from audiences on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Actually, Wallace was telegraphing a warning not to believe that either party would restore the segregation rules that characterized American society during the first half of this century.

Those who have followed in Wallace's footsteps have made a similar point: America's governance is really not going to be much different whether the nation's capital is controlled by Republicans or Democrats. Ross Perot has been the most recent messenger of this self-evident truth, and when he first made his appearance in the political arena four years ago, the Texas billionaire's message resonated once again across the nation. Indeed, it resonated so clearly and so intelligibly, at first, that one early poll gave him 37 percent of the vote in what was originally viewed as a contest between President George Bush and his Democratic challenger, Bill Clinton.

Subsequent polls that restored support for mainstream candidates and indicated a decline in Perot's popularity were due for the most part to the Texan's quirky behavior, his strange attachment to conspiracy theories and his surprising withdrawal and re-entry into the 1992 race. By that time, most voters had figured out that even though there might not be much of a choice between the nominees of the two parties, either was preferable to the self-nominated billionaire.

No doubt there will be some future candidate, perhaps in the person of Pat Buchanan, who will once again emphasize the almost-invisible line between the duly nominated candidates of the two major parties. While those doing the pointing will use the issue of similarities among the nominees, most Americans will no doubt reach the same conclusion they have each time: America cannot be well governed by one-half of the electorate that holds diametrically opposite views from the other half.

In the American system of governance, it is essential that certain basic policies are endorsed and adopted by both major parties, and as frustrating as this may be to those who seek a radical departure from the status quo (and indeed seek to change policies that have long since been proven unworkable), most voters will simply not be willing to risk experimentingwith radical change, regardless of its perceived need.

Returning once more to Wallace's theorem above, it needs to be noted that elections, despite their emotional ups and downs for the winners and losers, seldom bring about major policy changes. It's true that a new president presents the nation with fresh Cabinet members and others he selects to help him govern for the next four years. Having noted this, how many major policy changes can readers name that were instituted after George Bush left the White House? Can readers name one?

Its true, there was some discussion and minor rearranging of the Pentagon's homosexual exclusion policy, but that was more about moving commas than changing policies. Did the new president attempt to revise the foreign trade agreements that had been started under his predecessor? No, he did not. Did the new president seek to change the health care delivery system? Yes, he did. Did he succeed? No, he did not. In fact, the clumsy manner that was employed to change this system would lead some conspiracy theory proponents to conclude that the new president wasn't really interested in major reform.

Indeed, did Clinton alter the foreign policies, the monetary policies, the illegal immigration policies, the inflation-control policies, the labor policies or the welfare policies of the Bush administration? There were minor adjustments, of course, but no major revisions and certainly no revocations at all. That 1992 pledge to "end welfare as we know it" was accomplished not by a Democratic president but a Republican Congress -- more than three years later.

Will a Bob Dole be a different president than Bill Clinton? Of course he will, but in matters that have far less implication than the candidates promise. To older Americans, Dole would be a president they were accustomed to; to younger Americans he would appear to be a senior citizen who lived in an era they barely knew and certainly don't understand.

A Dole cabinet would be more conservative and the faces, while familiar, would still be new. But even Clinton's cabinet in a second term will be different, with numerous officials already indicating their intention to leave Washington.

If presidents don't alter the nation upon their election, surely majority changes in Congress provide a different path for the country. Are you certain about that? Oh, sure, Newt Gingrich became speaker last year amidst a bombastic barrage of proposed reforms and suddenly the alarmists were saying the country would soon be transformed into a revolutionary conservative consortium. Was it? There were some changes made in the welfare-delivery system, changes which Bill Clinton is now claiming as one of the achievements of his administration. Did military arms spending increase? Yes, it did, and Clinton signed the appropriation bill, although he had promised to curtail Pentagon profligacy when campaigning four years ago. Anyone who believes Al Gore is much different than Dan Quayle, except in spelling ability, simply hasn't been paying attention.

The point is that a majority of Americans, despite all their complaints, don't want major changes in how their federal government is run. They want programs improved or revised or made more efficient, but they want the programs because most of us benefit, directly or indirectly, from them. If they are of no value, or if they are pejorative in nature, then we want them eliminated.

Presidents are like erasers on pencils. They are most often viewed as essential for correcting, not writing.

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