Historical September 1982 report or notice. Original dates, prices and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
Well, it’s all over!
The voting booths have been put to bed.
All those left over and now useless leaflets and placards have become filler for next fall’s paper drive.
If you are a follower of political playmaking in St. Louis, you probably have read those complex analyses by Jack Flach, Kevin Horrigan and Les Pearson (they now are stacked in the garage, too, along with the leaflets and, placards), . how Joseph P. Roddy was defeated by Freeman “Teek” Bosley, Jr…. . . and Thomas A. Connelly … and Clara “Jo,” … how the WebbeAboussie-Slay coalition will affect the future of political life in our hometown, … about the last minute comeback by labor in the “toughest race of his career” (if you have to ask whose career, ask also for your vote back), … and how the greatest single influence in the Aug. 3 primary was a “Fat Man” on television who taught us a lesson: “The Voting Isn’t Over Till the Fat Man Eats.” By now, you probably think (or wish) you’ve heard all there is to hear about the Aug. 3 primary!
Well, there’s more. Jack and Kevin and Les forgot to check in with the residents of Skinker-DeBaliviere.
After reading this column, one will marvel at their foresight.
The Paper, realizing that Jack and Kevin and Les had overlooked S-D neighbors in their measure of the impact of the primary on the lives of St. Louisans, commissioned a special survey to seek out and synthesize the gut-level feelings of “real” citizens, … people who work for a living and raise a family and go to church and to see “E.T.” The Paper instructed this writer to reach out and solicit the opinions of “real” people, excluding all those in the community whose opinions might be tempered by their close involvement with any one candidate or proposition or amendment or by familial relationship with the same. Having reduced the eligible list of participants by such criteria, the remaining sixteen (16) residents of Skinker-DeBaliviere were then contacted.
First, to seek out political motivations for voting, each person was asked if s/he agreed with the “Better World Theory of Politics”: “When you go into the polls on election day, do you vote for or against a candidate or proposition or amendment because you believe somehow that your world will be a better place, … if the election results coincide with the way you vote.” Responses: Yes, 11; No, 3; Sometimes, 1; No Response, 1. Respondents who disagreed with the theory were then asked why they did not agree. Answers ranged from “I vote because it is my civic duty to keep things from becoming worse (the ‘left unchecked, power corrupts’ theory)” to “I voted for someone I wanted to win because I wanted that person to lose in the primary” to “Hey, that’s a loaded question!” Respondents who agreed with the theory were then asked if they felt, as a result of the primary, that their world was actually going to be a better place, a worse place or about the same in which to live.-Without any computer breakdown, the results are in: Better, 9%; Worse, 27%; Same, 64%. Those who felt that their world was going to be worse did so because they generally felt that St. Louisans had lost a chance to better their community by failing to pass the sales tax proposition or because they saw no improvement in the people representing them in government. Those who saw their world as about the same—the majority— did so for a variety of (colorful) reasons: “… I would like to see things change for the better, but, let’s face it, it is the rare person or proposition that will make some substantial difference.” . .
Because nothing really changed … we have the same rep, the same senator, same congressional representation.
The tax and school propositions—which would have brought about change if passed—failed.
The property tax—which, in effect, was designed to keep things the same—passed.
An exercise in mediocrity—but that’s not necessarily bad.” . we did not win anything.” Several who felt that nothing’ really changed were asked how they could justify their evaluation in light of the Roddy defeat and Bosley victory.
One respondent summarized the responses in this way: “In reality, there’s a change in characters, but not in the play or the stage props or scenery.” (Hmmmmmmm!) The one optimist felt that there would be no reason to vote, if you felt things were not going to get better.
This respondent added that Bill Clay’s election provided minority representation and “that’s important to me!” Each respondent was then asked to define “politics.” After the laughter died down, the responses rarely approached the theoretical beauty of Aristotle’s Politics, but did provide some insight into the “real” thinking of “real” people in Skinker-DeBaliviere: “… the art of trying to amass and maintain power.” “… the process of compromising various principles to govern society.” “… ideally, the.art of effectively motivating people to pursue a common goal (guess I felt guilty about my previous answers.).” “… a dirty game, not really democratic, but it is all we have to achieve representation.” “… the art of the possible.” “… the art of doing nothing.” “… a nice way of doing what you want to do without being questioned.” “That’s impossible!” Finally each respondent was asked: “Can we use your name in The Paper?” The results: Yes, 63%; No, 37%. Perhaps, the only general conclusion one can draw here is that 37% of the residents of Skinker-DeBaliviere still rank “friendship” high on their list of priorities.
In conclusion, you are probably asking what all this means anyway.
Well, here are two thoughts to ponder: One. Judging from the responses above, you might conclude that people in our neighborhood are cynical idealists when it comes to politics.
This is not the contradiction in terms it might appear to be at first glance. Rather, it’s a sign of the eminent good sense of at least the respondents to this survey (which the writer feels might be extended to the whole community). Which is to say, the people of S-D being fully aware that politics is every bit the blood sport it is accused of being, are also deeply aware that it is the only game in town whose goal is representative government, and not to play is the greatest foul ever. Two. Realizing that The Paper had commissioned this survey to seek out the “real” opinions of “real” people about the Aug. 3 primary, I have come to the conclusion that the survey results have far more significance than The Paper could ever have envisioned, when it began its search for a fool who would attempt to write an objective analysis of the election in this very political neighborhood. Like Diogenes, this fool found the one wise man in our whole neighborhood— remember that one person who refused to participate and gave no answer to this survey?
Well, I’ll never reveal his identity. (Survey assistance to this reluctant writer provided by Mary Bea Stout.)
Originally published in The Neighborhood Paper, September 1982.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1982_09.pdf, printed page(s) 1, 3; PDF page(s) 1, 3.
