STRONG WORDS DURING THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATE PRODUCE MIXED MESSAGES; KINDER'S COMMENTARY: THE RESPONSE -- CHARCHES OF ALLEGED NAME-CALLING IGNORE FACTS OF THE DEBATE

Well, well, well. Perhaps the editorial writers at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had better sit down and take a deep breath. Make that several.

For the second time in a fortnight, they have taken this writer to task, by name, for comments first deemed "excessive" (May 6) and then "supercharged" (May 20). Ordinarily, it takes an arrest to get an outstate lawmaker much ink in the Post, but they've spilled some on my account. A response, sure, but where to begin?

During floor debate May 1 in the Missouri Senate, Sen. Franc Flotron, R-St. Louis, offered an amendment to the pending tax bill that would allow deductions for parents of children attending private and parochial schools in grades 9-12. (For context, consider: We spend $3.3 billion on public education in Missouri. The amendment allowing this deduction would "cost" Missouri -- by leaving the money in parents' pockets -- approximately $4.5 million).

Senators opposed to Flotron's amendment cited the section of the Missouri Constitution known as the Blaine Amendment (Article IX, Section 8), which, they alleged, bars the proposed deduction. We responded that nothing in that amendment stopped the deduction we had in mind, because by its own terms the amendment bars state government from "appropriating" state funds in aid of any private school "controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever." Nonetheless, some historical discussion of the amendment and the climate out of which it arose was in order. This discussion followed.

Consistent with positions I have stoutly defended through two election campaigns, I took the floor in the longest speech I've made in five Senate sessions. In impassioned remarks, this Protestant pointed to what was, before dropping down the memory hole, an acknowledged fact. The amendment to Missouri's Constitution is, I argued, "a vestige of anti-Catholic bigotry from a century ago that has no place in our public life today."

James G. Blaine was a leading public figure in late 19th century America and, as the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it, "one of the succession of Americans whose ability and political acumen have led them close to the presidency ... only to be defeated." Republican Blaine narrowly lost the election of 1884 to Grover Cleveland despite "expected victory" in a "brilliant" campaign when at the end, his effort became tarred with a savage characterization of the opposition Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion." The Britannica, again: "Blaine failed to disavow" the allegation, "and the opposition made ready capital of Blaine's alleged endorsement of the bracketing of Roman Catholicism with the liquor traffic and sedition." Blaine was speaker of the House, a U.S. senator and twice secretary of state. He tried and failed to get this amendment adopted in the federal Constitution, but succeeded in a few states, including Missouri.

Note that no allegation of bigotry was leveled against anyone alive today. The Post has transformed this into my "attributing any opposition to anti-Catholic bigotry." I was merely providing historical context. (It was a Democratic senator from St. Louis who later enlarged on my remarks, commenting on the governor's stand.)

"The Blaine amendment," says one commentator, "was rooted in bigotry and preserved in prejudice." These were the days of ugly signs saying "No Irish need apply" and widespread bigotry by the Protestant majority against the alleged "lower orders" of Catholic immigrants pouring in from Southern and Eastern Europe. It is in this context that Missouri, along with a half-dozen other states, adopted the Blaine Amendment.

But surely the real reason for today's hyperventilating Post editorials is deeper, more telling?

In Bill Bennett's vivid metaphor, in this business "you're either moving the ball on them or they're moving the ball on you." Herein lies the real story of the hysterical Post commentary. For it can't be denied that merely by bringing the issue to the floor, gaining a Senate majority and igniting a continuing debate, we champions of parental freedom in education did some open-field running. Others are moving the ball all across America, where our side is appealing to the natural love of all parents for their own children. Stay tuned. We'll be back. Stronger. Confident. More numerous. And more joyously determined than ever.

~Peter Kinder is assistant to the president of Rust Communications and a state senator from Cape Girardeau.