MISSOURI WATCH: PUBLIC THREAT TO DEMOCRACY

A respected nonpartisan policy survey recently provided these disturbing findings about the level of the public's comprehension of national affairs:

-- Only four in 10 Americans are familiar with even a single segment of the Republicans' "Contract with America" that has received widespread publicity since last fall.

-- Only half of more than 1,800 surveyed could identify Newt Gingrich as the speaker of the House of Representatives.

-- Less than 50 percent are aware that Congress has approved the North American Free Trade Agreement, and less than 25 percent could identify any of its provisions.

-- Only 24 percent know the federal deficit has been reduced by more than $100 billion since 1993.

-- Just 32 percent are aware Congress has increased taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers; 50 percent said it had not.

Unfortunately there is even more evidence of the public's comprehension, or lack of it, from the California--based Center for the People and the Press. It has reported that the regular consumption of "news" among newspaper and television audiences has declined 13 percent since the "Contract with America" was unveiled last year. The center further found that four out of five Americans, 81 percent, were not "closely following" the reforms proposed by the new Republican majorities in Congress, and a more recent finding reports this number has - now reached 86 percent.

These, and still other polls that are conducted without political or economic bias, demonstrate an alarming lack of knowledge about government by an alarmingly large percentage of the American population. What is even worse, the polls suggest not only an absence of comprehension but a dearth of interest in what is occurring in the nation's capital.

In contrast to the public's low recognition of important political figures and national issues, evidence exists in large measure that Americans know a great deal about events that have little or no relevance to government or political affairs. Polls show ready recognition of such names as Lance Ito, Kato Kaelin and Joey Buttafuco.

While the public's consumption of news by established reporting agencies has declined, its interest in the more sensational syndicated shows has increased in almost the same proportion. Thus, shows like "Geraldo" and "Entertainment Tonight" are enjoying increased ratings, while even more titillating syndications now receive ratings once claimed by "Today" and "Good Morning America."

It's obvious from all these findings that today's generations, but particularly the youngest of these, are in the process of losing whatever interest they might at one time have had in public affairs and national governance. No one has ever quantified at what point this lack of interest must reach before America becomes something other than a democratically structured government, but we should not be complacent enough to believe that such a number does not exist.

One portion of the federal Constitution's First Amendment has sometimes been viewed, as others view the Second Amendment, as a serious error of judgment by the Founding Fathers. This interpretation is not surprising, since criticism of the amendment's guarantee of a free press has generally been delivered by partisans seeking to discredit their critics, but this interpretation of special favor is wrong.

There is substantial proof that the Constitution's authors had a broader interest in a free press than a special dispensation for the owners of printing presses. As The Federalist Papers suggest, the Founding Fathers were as concerned with preserving the federation of states as they were in creating the union. The idealists who created the American republic recognized an inalienable truth: a democracy rests on a foundation of public knowledge and concern, and without these components, the democracy would surely fail.

In order to assure public knowledge and interest, men such as Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Morris and Franklin agreed the public should have as broad an exposure to the events of the day as possible, so that a free and full discussion of the issues could occur. This could only be reached, the founders agreed, with a press that was free and uncensored, one that had as yet never been known in history.

Jefferson, who once said he would rather be governed by a free press than elected officials, later changed his mind, primarily because he had become the victim of extreme partisanship while serving in the presidency. He did not, however, modify his intense belief that a well educated citizenry was essential to the preservation of a democracy. Despite his disillusionment with the excesses of a politicized press, he refused to sanction limitations on-the original freedom.

Thanks to the emergence of professional news gathering organizations, such as The Associated Press, and the creation of competing news disseminating groups, such as radio and television, the American people are as free of political, partisan bias in the news as citizens anywhere in the world. Those who claim otherwise are motivated by other concerns, while those who claim they have no interest in national events are either too lazy or distracted to inform themselves.

It is easier, but much less rewarding, to watch a TV screen in which someone decides for us what news we should be told than to decide by use of one's own brain power what is significant and needed as a citizen in a free society.

The absence of public political interest and concern, and the willingness of so many to abdicate their responsibility as members of a democratic society, raise questions that are far more threatening to our democracy than even the federal deficit or which party momentarily controls Congress.

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