A few weeks ago it may not have been on the average voter’s radar as far as presidential election issues go. But after terrorists blew a hole into a U.S. Navy ship and Israelis and Palestinians escalated their violent conflict, national security pushed Al Gore and George W. Bush off the front page.

The increased attention on on defense may have pushed that issue up a little higher on the list of voters’ election concerns.

But political science professor Joseph Parker still doesn’t think it’s high enough.

&uot;I got the impression up until a few weeks ago that people had a ‘What? Me worry?’ attitude,&uot; said Parker, who teaches at the University of Southern Mississippi. &uot;There’s always something to worry about.&uot;

The key interest for U.S. residents in the Middle East conflict, Parker said, is likely a self-serving one, so to speak: oil.

&uot;Energy gets people’s attention,&uot; he said. &uot;My guess is that foreign policy moves from 11 on the list (of election issues important to voters) to 7 or 8.&uot;

The issue is certainly important to many veterans, such as Natchez’s Marvin Darsey, who served in World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam.

Darsey says the U.S. military is &uot;not what it needs to be.&uot;

&uot;Both of (the candidates) say that they’re going to beef (the military) up, but that remains to be seen,&uot; Darsey said.

But, politics and the military often don’t mix, Darsey said.

&uot;If the politicians would stay out of it and leave it up to the military, they’d be better off,&uot; Darsey said.

&uot;That’s one thing that (former president George) Bush did in the Persian Gulf War,&uot; he said. &uot;He stayed out of it and left it up to the military, and that’s one reason we were out of there so quick.&uot;

Jack Pitchford, retired Air Force colonel, sees a connection between politics and the military. Quoting a Communist writer of the Cold War era, Pitchford said: &uot;All wars (or) conflicts are extensions of the prevailing political posture of the times.&uot;

That said, Pitchford said he does not think national security is being talked about enough in the presidential campaign.

Issues like prescription drug prices and social security have taken precedence over the state of the military, Pitchford said, and he is concerned.

&uot;What good is health and welfare if your country is not safe?&uot; he said.

&uot;The primary job of the man sitting up there … is to insure maximum security for the nation,&uot; Pitchford said.

Parker agreed that national security should be a more important issue than it is now.

&uot;In the great scheme of things, the president has more control over national security than most other issues,&uot; Parker said. &uot;It’s the one area where the president has a great deal of influence.&uot;

For most of the 20th century, Cold War politics had voters wondering who they could trust to have his &uot;finger on the trigger,&uot; Parker said.

&uot;It hung over every campaign&uot; for about 40 years,&uot; he said.

Now, he joked, the number of voters concerned about foreign policy ranks somewhere below the number of voters concerned about whether &uot;Beavis and Butthead&uot; should be on the air.

&uot;That tells you things have changed,&uot; he said.

Witness the issues Gore and Bush have both pushed to the forefront this year: prescription drugs for seniors and education.

&uot;They’re surrounding themselves with either prescription drugs or leaving no kid behind,&uot; Parker said. In the case of education, he pointed out, &uot;what national government does is minimal.&uot;

Some 96 percent of the annual budget for public education is administered by state and local governments, he said.

&uot;More than nine out of 10 dollars is derived from Mississippi taxpayers or Vermont taxpayers,&uot; Parker said.

So how much attention should the federal government place on national defense?

For Pitchford, too much may not be enough.

&uot;I believe in what they call overkill,&uot; said Pitchford, referring to party accusations that Republicans want to sink as much money as they can in the military. &uot;I’d rather have a hell of a lot more protection than not enough.&uot;

Lloyd Love, an attorney in Ferriday, served in 73 European missions during World War II. He said the experience has had an effect on his political interests.

&uot;I’m dedicated to the thought that our armed forces should be strong and prepared,&uot; Love said.

Darryl Grennell, Adams County supervisor and local Democratic activist, agrees.

&uot;Whoever the next president is (he’s) going to be confronted with some military decisions,&uot; he said. &uot;That’s something that needs to be seriously considered.&uot;

But, overall, Grennell said he is confident that the U.S. military is prepared, as it always has been.

Fellow Democrat and Natchez Alderwoman Joyce Arceneaux said Republicans and Democrats have two distinctly different philosophies when it comes to the U.S. military.

Faced with a federal budget surplus, Arceneaux said she strongly supports the Democratic platform of reinvesting in the American &uot;infrastructure&uot; of public education and federal programs.

&uot;I’m not saying we should swing the pendulum and go from everything to nothing, but we should look at this surplus in terms of putting it back in the infrastructure,&uot; Arceneaux said.

For Grennell, on the other hand, party lines are blurred when it comes to military readiness.

&uot;The two candidates, they both have the same focus as far as national security,&uot; Grennell said. &uot;I don’t see much difference there.&uot;

&uot;Any president, whether Republican or Democrat, is going to protect the country’s welfare,&uot; he said.

All agreed that Congress and the military hold most of the policy-creating power when it comes to national defense, but emphasized the role of the president as the Commander in Chief.

&uot;The president of the United States is the most powerful position in the world,&uot; Arceneaux said. &uot;That office has so much power in it we need a level-headed person in there.&uot;

But when it comes down to voters, how much it costs to buy cold medicine more often winds up more important than how much it costs to bolster our missile defense system.

Tammy Holsey of Clayton, La., claims not to know much about the presidential race, but she holds strong opinions just the same.

Rather than dedicate more money to muscle the military, Holsey wants to see the focus on the homefront.

&uot;I think they should take care of the older people,&uot; she said. &uot;They’re the people who’ve already fought for us and gave us our freedom.

&uot;The old people, they can’t take their pills, but we’re worried about how many more heat-guided missiles we can buy,&uot; Holsey said.

Holsey admits she would be more concerned about national security if she felt a cause for alarm. &uot;I’ve never seen a war in my frontyard. I’ve never seen it with my own eyes,&uot; she said. &uot;I’ve always felt pretty safe.&uot;

Karen Goodwin was willing to talk politics across the counter at Video Village in Ferriday.

&uot;As far as the military goes, I think they’re up there where they need to be,&uot; Goodwin said. &uot;But, then again, what do I know.&uot;

&uot;Down here in a little town in Louisiana, we don’t really know what’s going on.&uot;

&uot;It’s hard for me to say well they should do this or they should do that, because I’m not involved. I don’t know anybody in the military.&uot;

Parker said he understands why foreign policy simply isn’t as important to people as the everyday issues they face.

&uot;Foreign policy is an elite concern,&uot; Parker said. &uot;Journalists, bankers, lawyers have a professional interest in it.

&uot;That’s not to say ordinary citizens aren’t concerned about peace in the Middle East,&uot; he said. &uot;But they know about gas prices, food prices, day care. There’s nothing wrong with that.&uot;