During his travels to Europe, where he lived for 11 years in the late 1920′s to the late 1930′s, Robeson visited Russia. There he won the International Stalin Peace Prize in 1952 during the McCarthy years, which brought him to the attention of the anti-communist committee hearings in the Senate during those years. Although Robeson declared that he was a socialist, as opposed to communist, but he was painted with the brush of the latter. Concert dates were cancelled, and Robeson became vilified to the extent that he was seldom given much press or recognition for later achievements. Robeson’s passport had been taken away from him in 1950 so that he had been unable to leave the country until the Supreme Court ruling on another case like his and his passport restored. By then he had lost his status and his money, became seriously depressed, and tried twice to commit suicide, according to a music historian who wrote about his life.

Robeson’s problems continued unabated. His biography, written in 1958, was not even reviewed by the major journals of the time. After living in Russia and Africa, and continuing his travels in Europe, he returned to the United States in 1963 . By the 1960′s and 1970′s he was virtually unknown, and his health deteriorated dramatically. Robeson died after suffering a stroke in 1976 in the Philadelphia area. His autobiography Here I Stand gives his life view and documents his beliefs and experiences to 1958. Despite his many accomplishments during the 20th century, and his recognition by many scholars connected with Princeton and Rutgers Universities as being perhaps one of the greatest geniuses of that century, he is seldom, if ever, shown in history books. Despite that omission, however, on January 20, 2004 a postal stamp honoring Paul Robeson was unveiled in Princeton, New Jersey and is now part of the Black Heritage Stamp Collection. The sad thing is that this great talent is largely unknown by young people of color let alone most white Americans living today. Still his legacy continues in the music he gave that provides some sense of immortality for him.

One of Paul Robeson’s songs shows the conviction that everyone can and should contribute equally in America, which Robeson believed and spoke about, despite his interest in political issues that forced him to live many years in relative exile. He wanted to perform equally, as he had found in Europe, and mourned the segregation in America. Like Barack Obama as a young man Paul Robeson believed in the virtues of America, despite the great prejudices of his time. He had a vision of unity in diversity. The song, “Ballad of America,” is a riveting example of the power of his voice in song and speech. Here are some of its words:

“–From her plains and mountains, we have sprung,

To keep the faith with those who went before. . . .

Our marching song will come again,

Simple as a hit tune, deep as our valleys.

High as our mountains, strong as the people who made it.

For I have always believed it and I believe it now and you know who I am.”

Related items

• Political Parties of the US
• How to Have a Mature Political Chat
• Political Lies And Global Warming
• San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs California Political Lawyer Analyzes Political Campaign Finance Laws
• Wireless Internet is a Political Issueâ?¦again

Introduction

The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy. What is that?

In a literal sense, democracy means government by the people. The word democracy originated in two Greek roots—demos, meaning “the populace” or “the common people”; and kratia, meaning “rule.” Of course, in large, populous nations, government by all the people is impractical at the national level. It would be impossible for the more than 246 million Americans to vote on every important issue that comes before Congress. Consequently, democracies are generally maintained through a mode of participation known as representative democracy, in which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.

The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, since Americans elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing laws.

Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the democratic form of government implies an opposition which is tolerated or, indeed, encouraged to exist. In the United States, there are two major political parties—the Democrats and Republicans—as well as various minor parties. Sociologists use the term political party to refer to an organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and exercise power.

So in my report I would like to tell you history of American donkey and elephant. Also I used to think that there are no politic parties in the USA except Democrats and Republicans but that was mistake I changed due to that report.

THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES:

The Democratic Party (DNC) today

After the 2002 elections, Democrats control several key governorships (including PA, MI, IL, VA, NJ, NC and WA) and many state legislatures – but lost control of the US House in 1994, narrowly lost control of the US Senate again in 2002 (but they still hold enough seats to block much legislation), and lost control of the White House in the 2000 elections. While prominent Democrats run the wide gamut from the near democratic-socialist left (Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich and the Congressional Progressive Caucus) and traditional liberals (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy) to the center-right (Joe Lieberman, the Congressional Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrat Network) to the GOP-style conservative right (Ralph Hall and Gene Taylor), most fall somewhere into the pragmatic Democratic Leadership Council’s “centrist” moderate-to-liberal style (Evan Bayh, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle).

Brief History of  the Democratic Party

At the start of the 21st Century, the Democratic Party can look back on a proud history — a history not just of a political organization but of a national vision. It is a vision based on the strength and power of millions of economically empowered, socially diverse and politically active Americans. Over two hundred years ago, democsatic party’s founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule. They believed that wisdom and compassion could be found within every individual and a stable government must be built upon a broad popular base.

The late Ron Brown — former Chairman of the Democratic Party — put it best when he wrote, “The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren.”

Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the “party of the common man” was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms and was followed by James Madison in 1808. Madison strengthened America’s armed forces — helping reaffirm American independence by defeating the British in the War of 1812. James Monroe was elected president in 1816 and led the USA through a time commonly known as “The Era of Good Feeling” in which Democratic-Republicans served with little opposition.

The election of John Quincy Adams in 1824 was highly contested and led to a four-way split among Democratic-Republicans. A result of the split was the emergence of Andrew Jackson as a national leader. The war hero, generally considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party, organized his supporters to a degree unprecedented in American history. The Jacksonian Democrats created the national convention process, the party platform, and reunified the Democratic Party with Jackson’s victories in 1828 and 1832. The Party held its first National Convention in 1832 and nominated President Jackson for his second term. In 1844, the National Convention simplified the Party’s name to the Democratic Party.

In 1848, the National Convention established the Democratic National Committee, now the longest running political organization in the world. The Convention charged the DNC with the responsibility of promoting “the Democratic cause” between the conventions and preparing for the next convention.

As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly. The Democratic Party embraced the immigrants who flooded into cities and industrial centers, built a political base by bringing them into the American mainstream, and helped create the most powerful economic engine in history. Democratic Party leader William Jennings Bryan led a movement of agrarian reformers and supported the right of women’s suffrage, the progressive graduated income tax and the direct election of Senators. As America entered the 20th Century, the Democratic Party became dominant in local urban politics.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson became the first Democratic president of the 20th Century. Wilson led the country through World War I, fought for the League of Nations, established the Federal Reserve Board, and passed the first labor and child welfare laws.

A generation later, Franklin Roosevelt was elected president running on the promise of a New Deal. Roosevelt pulled America out of the Depression by looking beyond the Democratic base and energizing citizens around the belief that their government could actively assist them in times of need. Roosevelt’s New Deal brought water to California’s Central Valley, electrified Appalachia and saved farms across the Midwest. The Civilian Conservation Corps, the WPA and Social Security all brought Americans into the system, freeing people from fear, giving to people a stake in the future, making the nation stronger.

With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender. Truman integrated the military and oversaw the reconstruction of Europe by establishing the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Truman’s leadership paved the way for civil rights leaders who followed.

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy challenged an optimistic nation to build on its great history. Kennedy proclaimed a New Frontier and dared Americans to put a man on the moon, created the Peace Corps, and negotiated a treaty banning atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Lyndon Johnson followed Kennedy’s lead and worked to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Kennedy and Johnson worked together to end the practice of segregation in many southern states. Following Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson declared a War on Poverty and formed a series of Great Society programs, including the creation of Medicare — ensuring that older Americans would receive quality health care.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected president, helping to restore the nation’s trust in government following the Watergate scandal. Among other things, Carter negotiated the historic Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected the 42nd President of the United States. President Clinton ran on the promise of a New Covenant for America’s forgotten working families. After twelve years of Republican presidents, America faced record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. President Clinton’s policies put people first and resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in peacetime history. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 — passed by both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote — put America on the road to fiscal responsibility and led to the end of perennial budget deficits. Having inherited a $290 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton’s last budget was over $200 billion in surplus. The Clinton/Gore Administration was responsible for reducing unemployment to its lowest level in decades and reducing crime to its lowest levels in a generation. In 1996, President Clinton became the first Democratic president reelected since Roosevelt in 1996. In 1998, Democrats became the first party controlling the White House to gain seats in Congress during the sixth year of a president’s term since 1822.

In the 2000 elections, Democrats netted 4 additional Senate seats, one additional House seat, and one additional gubernatorial seat. Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote for President by more than 500,000 votes. In 2001, Democrats regained control of the Senate under Majority Leader Tom Daschle, while Democrats swept to victory in races all across the country, including races for Virginia Governor and Lt. Governor, New Jersey Governor, and 39 out of 42 major mayoral races including Los Angeles and Houston.

While we have accomplished a great deal — as a nation and a Party, we must continue to move forward in the 21st Century. We must work to incorporate all Americans into the fabric of our nation. The history of our next hundred years can be seen in the gorgeous mosaic of America, from the wheat fields of Nebraska to the barrios of New York City, from the mountains of Colorado to the rocky coast of Maine. The Democratic Party is America’s last, best hope to bridge the divisions of class, race, region, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We will succeed if we continue to govern by the same principles that have made America the greatest nation on earth — the principles of strength, inclusion and opportunity. The Democratic Party is ready to take advantage of the opportunities we have and meet the challenges we face.

The Democratic Donkey

When Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a “jackass” for his populist views and his slogan, “Let the people rule.” Jackson, however, picked up on their name calling and turned it to his own advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson’s stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank.

The first time the donkey was used in a political cartoon to represent the Democratic party, it was again in conjunction with Jackson. Although in 1837 Jackson was retired, he still thought of himself as the Party’s leader and was shown trying to get the donkey to go where he wanted it to go. The cartoon was titled “A Modern Baalim and his Ass.”

Interestingly enough, the person credited with getting the donkey widely accepted as the Democratic party’s symbol probably had no knowledge of the prior associations. Thomas Nast, a famous political cartoonist, came to the United States with his parents in 1840 when he was six. He first used the donkey in an 1870 Harper’s Weekly cartoon to represent the “Copperhead Press” kicking a dead lion, symbolizing Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who had recently died. Nast intended the donkey to represent an anti-war faction with whom he disagreed, but the symbol caught the public’s fancy and the cartoonist continued using it to indicate some Democratic editors and newspapers.

Later, Nast used the donkey to portray what he called “Caesarism” showing the alleged Democratic uneasiness over a possible third term for Ulysses S. Grant. In conjunction with this issue, Nast helped associate the elephant with the Republican party. Although the elephant had been connected with the Republican party in cartoons that appeared in 1860 and 1872, it was Nast’s cartoon in 1874 published by Harper’s Weekly that made the pachyderm stick as the Republican’s symbol. A cartoon titled “The Third Term Panic,” showed animals representing various issues running away from a donkey wearing a lion’s skin tagged “Caesarism.” The elephant labeled “The Republican Vote,” was about to run into a pit containing inflation, chaos, repudiation, etc.

By 1880 the donkey was well established as a mascot for the Democratic party. A cartoon about the Garfield-Hancock campaign in the New York Daily Graphic showed the Democratic candidate mounted on a donkey, leading a procession of crusaders.

Over the years, the donkey and the elephant have become the accepted symbols of the Democratic and Republican parties. Although the Democrats have never officially adopted the donkey as a party symbol, we have used various donkey designs on publications over the years. The Republicans have actually adopted the elephant as their official symbol and use their design widely.

The Democrats think of the elephant as bungling, stupid, pompous and conservative – but the Republicans think it is dignified, strong and intelligent. On the other hand, the Republicans regard the donkey as stubborn, silly and ridiculous – but the Democrats claim it is humble, homely, smart, courageous and loveable.

Adlai Stevenson provided one of the most clever descriptions of the Republican’s symbol when he said, “The elephant has a thick skin, a head full of ivory, and as everyone who has seen a circus parade knows, proceeds best by grasping the tail of its predecessor.”

The Republican Party (RNC) today

Republicans control a slim majority in the US House, several key Governorships (including NY, TX, OH, GA, MA and FL), recaptured the White House in 2000, and narrowly re-took majority status in the US Senate in 2002. Leading Republicans fall into several different ideological factions: traditional conservatives (President George W. Bush, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist and the Club for Growth), the Religious Right (Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies and the Christian Coalition), the old Nixon/Rockefeller “centrist” or “moderate” wing (Colin Powell, George Pataki, the Republican Main Street Partnership, the Republican Leadership Council and the Republican Mainstream Committee), and libertarians (Ron Paul and the Republican Liberty Caucus).

Brief History of  the Republican Party

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850′s by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee.

The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name “Republican” was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.” Even though they were considered a “third party” because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

The Civil War erupted in 1861 and lasted four grueling years. During the war, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women’s suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeannette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

Presidents during most of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century were Republicans. While the Democrats and Franklin Roosevelt tended to dominate American politics in the 1930′s and 40′s, for 28 of the forty years from 1952 through 1992, the White House was in Republican hands – under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Under the last two, Reagan and Bush, the United States became the world’s only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression.

Behind all the elected officials and the candidates of any political party are thousands of hard-working staff and volunteers who raise money, lick the envelopes, and make the phone calls that every winning campaign must have. The national structure of the party starts with the Republican National Committee. Each state has its own Republican State Committee with a Chairman and staff. The Republican structure goes right down to the neighborhoods, where a Republican precinct captain every Election Day organizes Republican workers to get out the vote.

Most states ask voters when they register to express party preference. Voters don’t have to do so, but registration lists let the parties know exactly which voters they want to be sure vote on Election Day. Just because voters register as a Republican, they don’t need to vote that way – many voters split their tickets, voting for candidates in both parties. But the national party is made up of all registered Republicans in all 50 states. For the most part they are the voters in Republican Presidential primaries and caucuses. They are the heart and soul of the party.

Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home.

The symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. During the mid term elections way back in 1874, Democrats tried to scare voters into thinking President Grant would seek to run for an unprecedented third term. Thomas Nast, a cartoonist for Harper’s Weekly, depicted a Democratic jackass trying to scare a Republican elephant – and both symbols stuck.

For a long time Republicans have been known as the “G.O.P.”  And party faithfuls thought it meant the “Grand Old Party.” But apparently the original meaning (in 1875) was “gallant old party.” And when automobiles were invented it also came to mean, “get out and push.” That’s still a pretty good slogan for Republicans who depend every campaign year on the hard work of hundreds of thousands of volunteers to get out and vote and push people to support the causes of the Republican Party.

Origin Of The Republican Elephant

This symbol of the Republican party was born in the imagination of cartoonist Thomas Nast and first appeared in Harper’s Weekly on November 7, 1874.

An 1860 issue of Railsplitter and an 1872 cartoon in Harper’s Weekly connected elephants with Republicans, but it was Nast who provided the party with its symbol.

Oddly, two unconnected events led to the birth of the Republican Elephant. James Gordon Bennett’s New York Herald raised the cry of “Caesarism” in connection with the possibility of a thirdterm try for President Ulysses S. Grant. The issue was taken up by the Democratic politicians in 1874, halfway through Grant’s second term and just before the midterm elections, and helped disaffect Republican voters.

While the illustrated journals were depicting Grant wearing a crown, the Herald involved itself in another circulation-builder in an entirely different, nonpolitical area. This was the Central Park Menagerie Scare of 1874, a delightful hoax perpetrated by the Herald. They ran a story, totally untrue, that the animals in the zoo had broken loose and were roaming the wilds of New York’s Central Park in search of prey.

Cartoonist Thomas Nast took the two examples of the Herald enterprise and put them together in a cartoon for Harper’s Weekly. He showed an ass (symbolizing the Herald) wearing a lion’s skin (the scary prospect of Caesarism) frightening away the animals in the forest (Central Park). The caption quoted a familiar fable:

“An ass having put on a lion’s skin roamed about in the forest and amused himself by frightening all the foolish animals he met within his wanderings.”

One of the foolish animals in the cartoon was an elephant, representing the Republican vote – not the party, the Republican vote – which was being frightened away from its normal ties by the phony scare of Caesarism. In a subsequent cartoon on November 21, 1874, after the election in which the Republicans did badly, Nast followed up the idea by showing the elephant in a trap, illustrating the way the Republican vote had been decoyed from its normal allegiance. Other cartoonists picked up the symbol, and the elephant soon ceased to be the vote and became the party itself: the jackass, now referred to as the donkey, made a natural transition from representing the Herald to representing the Democratic party that had frightened the elephant.

THE THIRD PARTIES:
(in alphabetical order)

America First Party

The America First Party was founded in Spring 2002 by a large group of Buchanan Brigade defectors who splintered away from the declining Reform Party to form this new, uncompromisingly social conservative and fair trade party (with a strong foundation in the Religious Right movement). The views of the party largely echo those espoused by commentator Pat Buchanan during his three Presidential bids. The AFP is dedicated to “protect our people and our sovereignty … promote economic growth and independence … encourage the traditional values of faith, family, and responsibility … ensure equality before the law in protecting those rights granted by the Creator … [and] to clean up our corrupted political system.” Within a month of the AFP’s founding, ten former Reform Party state chapters formally broke away from the RP and affiliated with the AFP. By the August 2002 National Convention, the AFP had affiliates in around 20 states – and they hoped to be organized in nearly all 50 states by the end of 2003. Now, those hopes seem dashed. The AFP’s national chair, vice chair and treasurer have all resigned in mid-2003 after a hardcore group affiliated with ultra-right militia movement leader Bo Gritz purportedly grabbed control of key party elements. Others in the AFP denied this, saying the Gritz complaints were just a pretext to mask serious financial problems and personality divisions within the party that really caused the collapse. So – for whatever reasons – many AFP state parties apparently left the national party for the same reason. The AFP National Convention – set for July 2003 – was cancelled. The party even abandoned the possibility of fielding a Presidential candidate in 2004. A Buchananite AFP faction reported that they will attempt to reorganize at mid-2003 meeting – placing a greater emphasis on building state party strength.

American Party

The AP is a very small, very conservative, Christian splinter party formed after a break from the American Independent Party in 1972. US Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Governor Mel Thomson (R-NH) both flirted with the American Party’s presidential nomination in 1976, but both ultimately declined. The party won its strongest finish in the 1976 presidential election – nominee Tom Anderson carried 161,000 votes (6th place) – but has now largely faded into almost total obscurity. The party’s 1996 Presidential candidate – anti-gay rights activist and attorney Diane Templin – carried just 1,900 votes. Former GOP State Senator Don Rogers of California – the 2000 nominee for President – did even worse as he failed to qualify for ballot status in any states. The party – which used to field a sizable amount of state and local candidates in the 1970s – rarely fields more than a handful of nominees nationwide in recent years, although they do claim local affiliates in 15 states. Beyond the pro-life, pro-gun and anti-tax views that you’d expect to find, the American Party also advocates an end to farm price supports/subsidies, privatization of the US Postal Service, opposes federal involvement in education, supports abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency, supports repeal of NAFTA, opposes minimum wage laws, opposes land use zoning regulations and opposes convening a Constitutional convention. Of course, the AP also opposes the United Nations, the New World Order, communism, socialism and the Trilateral Commission.

American Heritage Party

The AHP, formerly the Washington State affiliate of the USTP/Constitution Party, broke away from that group in 2000 because of religious grounds (i.e., while the CP is clearly a Religious Right party, it is not explicitly a Christian party). Thus, the AHP describes itself as “a political party that adopts the Bible as its political textbook and is unashamed to be explicitly Christian … [and] whose principles are drawn from Scripture.” The AHP planned to become a national conservative party, with the ultimate goal of fielding candidates around the nation in coming years. The party previously fielded some candidate for Congress, Governor and local offices in Washington in 1998 – but ran just one local candidate in 2000 and another one in 2002.

American Independent Party

Governor George C. Wallace (D-AL) founded the AIP and ran as the its first Presidential nominee in 1968. Running on a right-wing, anti-Washington, anti-racial integration, anti-communist platform, Wallace carried nearly 10 million votes (14%) and won 5 Southern states. Although Wallace returned to the Democratic Party by 1970, the AIP continued to live on – although moving even further to the right. The 1972 AIP nominee, John Birch Society leader and Congressman John G. Schmitz (R-CA), carried nearly 1.1 million votes (1.4%). The 1976 AIP Presidential nominee was former Governor Lester Maddox (D-GA), a vocal segregationist – but he fell far below Schmitz’s vote total. The AIP last fielded its own national Presidential candidate in 1980, when they nominated white supremacist ex-Congressman John Rarick (D-LA) – who carried only 41,000 votes nationwide. The AIP still fields local candidates in a few states – mainly California – but is now merely a state affiliate party of the national Constitution Party. For the past three presidential elections, the AIP simply co-nominated the Constitution Party’s Presidential nominee.

American Nazi Party

Exactly what the name implies … these are a bunch of uniformed, swastika-wearing Nazis! This party is a combination of fascists, Aryan Nations-type folks, “White Power” racist skinheads and others on the ultra-radical political fringe. As a political party, the American Nazi Party has not fielded a Presidential candidate since Lincoln Rockwell ran as a write-in candidate in 1964 (he was murdered in 1967 by a disgruntled ANP member) – nor any other candidate for other offices since the mid-1970s (although a loosely affiliated candidate ran for Congress in Illinois in a Democratic primary in 2000). The ANP believes in establishing an Aryan Republic where only “White persons of unmixed, non-Semitic, European descent” can hold citizenship. They support the immediate removal of “Jews and non-whites out of all positions of government and civil service – and eventually out of the country altogether.” This miniscule party – while purportedly denouncing violence and illegal acts – blends left-wing economic socialism, right-wing social fascism and strong totalitarian sentiments.

American Reform Party

The ARP, formerly known as the National Reform Party Committee, was founded in September 1997. The ARP is a splinter group that broke away from Ross Perot and Russ Verney’s Reform Party, claiming the Perot organization was unfocused and anti-democratic when the memberships’ views clashed with Perot’s views. The ARP fielded some candidates for state and federal offices in “Reform Party” primaries against candidates backed by Perot’s Reform Party in 1998. The ouster of Perot’s allies from control of the Reform Party at the July 1999 national convention looked like a move towards ending the split. However, the resoration of control to the Perot forces in early 2000 and subsequent takeover of state party affiliates by the Buchanan forces killed any move by the ARP folks to rejoin the Reform Party. Instead, the ARP ultimately shifted towards the left and opted to “endorse” (but not co-nominate) Green Party Presidential nominee Ralph Nader in the 2000 elections. Since then, the ARP has become virtually invisible on the political scene – fielding only four state/local candidates nationwide in 2002 (plus co-endorsing several other third party candidates). The ARP vows to rebuild in the coming election cycle.

Christian Falangist Party of America

The CFPA appears to be the more active of the two Falangist political parties in the US (the American Falangist Party (AFP), below, being the other one). As for the ideology, they share the general historical and ideological roots expressed by the AFP – although the CFPA seems more closely affiliated with the Lebanese branch of the Falangist movement. The CFPA, founded in 1985, “is dedicated to fighting the ‘Forces of Darkness’ which seeks to destroy Western Christian Civilization.” The CFPA site explicitly defines “Forces of Darkness” as being “Radical Islam, Communism/Socialism, the New World Order, the New Age movement, Third Position/Neo-Nazis, Free Masons, Abortionists, Euthanasianists, Radical Homosexuals and Pornographers.” Numerous attacks against Islam can be found throughout the CFPA site. Yet, despite this lengthy list of foes that it wishes to destroy – umm, “defend” themselves against (the wording they use) – the CFPA helpfully notes it is “not a hate organization and does not condone acts of violence or hatred towards those of differing or opposing viewpoints and lifestyles, nor does it condone racism in any form.” In 1998, the CFPA and AFP united as one entity – but differences caused them to break apart after two years. The CFPA desires to be a direct action political movement – and criticizes the AFP as comprised mainly of “armchair patriots.” The CFPA promises to “bring excitement to the otherwise boring American political arena.” The CFPA is fielding it’s first candidate in 2004: CFPA National Chairman Kurt Weber-Heller is running as a write-in candidate for President.

Communist Party USA

The CPUSA, once the slavish propaganda tool and spy network for the Soviet Central Committee, has experiences a forced transformation in recent years. Highly classified Soviet Politburo records, made public after the fall of Soviet communism, revealed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union illegally funneled millions of dollars to the CPUSA to finance its activities from the 1920s to the 1980s. The flow of Soviet dollars to the CPUSA came to an abrupt halt when the communists were ousted from power there in 1991, ultimately causing a retooling of CPUSA activities. Founded in 1924, the CPUSA reached its peak vote total in 1932 with nominee William Z. Foster (102,000 votes – 4th place). The last national CPUSA ticket – featuring the team of Gus Hall and Angela Davis – was fielded back in 1984 (36,000 votes – 8th place). While the party has not directly fielded any of its own candidates for over a decade, the CPUSA has backed some candidates in various local elections (often in industrial communities) and engaged in grassroots political and labor union organizing. In the 1998 elections, longtime CPUSA leader Hall actually urged party members to vote for all of the Democratic candidates for Congress – arguing that voting for any progressive third party candidates would undermine the efforts to oust the “reactionary” Republicans from control of Congress. As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under $60,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs, the outlawing of “scabs and union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class … [and promote] anti-imperialist freedom struggles around the world.” The CPUSA’s underlying communist ideology hasn’t changed much over the years, but the party’s tactics have undergone a major shift (somewhat reminiscent of those used by the CPUSA in the late 1930s). After the death of hardline communist leader Hall in 2000, Gorbachev-style “reform communist” activist Sam Webb assumed leadership of the CPUSA. The CPUSA also maintains online sites for the People’s Weekly World party newspaper, Political Affairs monthly party magazine, and the CPUSA’s Young Communists League youth organization.

Constitution Party

Former Nixon Administration official and Conservative Coalition chairman Howard Phillips founded the US Taxpayers Party in 1992 as a potential vehicle for Pat Buchanan to use as a third party vehicle – had he agreed to bolt from the GOP in 1992 or 1996. The USTP pulled together several of the splintered right-wing third parties – including the once mighty American Independent Party – into a larger, more visible political entity (although some state affiliate parties operate under names other than the USTP). Renamed as the Constitution Party in 1999, the party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-tax, anti-immigration, protectionist, “anti-New World Order,” anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, pro-school prayer … basically a hardcore Religious Right platform. When Buchanan stayed in the GOP, Phillips ran as the USTP nominee in both 1992 (ballot status in 21 states – 43,000 votes – 0.04%) and 1996 (ballot spots in 39 states – 185,000 votes – 6th place – 0.2%) – and as the Constitution nominee in 2000 (ballot status in 41 states – 98,000 votes – 6th place – 0.1%). The party started fielding local candidates in 1994. Still, for a new third party attempting to grow, the party fielded disappointingly few local candidates since 1998. The web site features the Constitution Party platform, articles, archives, links and more. The party received a brief boost in the media when conservative US Senator Bob Smith – an announced GOP Presidential hopeful – bolted from the Republican Party to seek the Constitution Party nomination in 2000 (although Smith exited from the Constitution Party race just two weeks later). At the 1999 national convention, the party narrowly adopted a controversial change to its platform’s preamble which declared “that the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ” – although the party officially invites “all citizens of all faiths” to become active in the party. Any national candidate seeking the party’s nomination is explicitly required to tell the convention of any areas of disagreement with the party’s platform. In Spring 2002, Pat Buchanan’s 2000 VP runningmate Ezola Foster and many Reform Party leaders from California and Maryland defected to the Constitution Party, providing a nice boost to the party. In a blow to the party, many of the Buchanan’s followers from the 2000 race launched the nearly identical America First Party in 2002 (although it seemed to implode less than a year later). The Young Constitutionalists are the youth wing of the party.

Constitutional Action Party

The CAP is a tiny Religious Right party that wants to abolish the federal income tax, ban all abortions, end Affirmative Action, impose protectionist trade tariffs, fight pornography and end federal involvement in education. CAP founder Frank Creel wrote Politics1 in January 1999 that the CAP “has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office and no prospect of running a presidential candidate in 2000. There is little to no prospect that we will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. … Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party.” Still, the CAP keeps it small web site online, and recently updated the design. The CAP fielded its first candidate in 2002, when CAP Chair Frank Creel ran for Congress in Virginia.

Family Values Party

This ultra-conservative, theocratic party seems to exist mainly to promote the frequent federal candidacies of party founder Tom Wells. Wells explained that God spoke directly to him in his bedroom on December 25, 1994 at 2:00 a.m. and “commanded him to start” the FVP. To be exact, Wells said God specifically told him to encourage people to stop paying taxes until the public funding of abortion ends. The FVP political platform is largely derived from religious fundamentalism, including many specific citations to Bible passages. This “party” remains largely an alter-ego of Wells – who always seems to be running as a write-in candidate for President or Congress (or both).

Freedom Socialist Party / Radical Women

The FSP – formed in 1966 by a splinter group of dissident Trotskyites who broke away from the Socialist Workers Party – describe themselves as “revolutionary feminist internationalists … in the living tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.” That’s they reason they also refer to their entity as “Radical Women.” They use the typical heavy-handed rhetoric found on most ultra-left party sites (example: “the masses will sweep every obstacle out of their path and ascend to the socialist future”). The FSP has party organizations in the US, Canada and Australia. In 1998, the FSP fielded a handful of local candidates in Washington, California and New York. The FSP has never fielded a Presidential candidate.

Grassroots Party

Originally launched as a Minnesota-based liberal party, the tiny GRP advocates the legalization of marijuana, promotes hemp farming and the establishment of a national system of universal health care (among other things). In general ideology, the GRP is very similar to the Greens – but with a much stronger emphasis on marijuana/hemp legalization issues. The GRP fielded their first Presidential nominee – Dennis Peron – in 1996 (5,400 votes). In 1996, the GRP won permanent “major party” ballot status in Vermont. The Vermont affiliate was initially more libertarian and “states rights” oriented in philosophy than its leftist sister party in Minnesota (linked above) – and 2000 Presidential nominee Denny Lane, came from this group (on the ballot in only one state and captured just 1,044 votes – 12th place – 0.001%). Since 1996, most Minnesota GRP activists jumped to either the Green Party or the Democratic Grassroots Caucus. In 2002, many of the libertarian-leaning Vermont GRP leaders bolted to the Libertarian Party – a move that has restored the Vermont faction to largely being a leftist, marijuana/hemp legalization party. The remnants of the Minnesota GRP disbanded and merged into the Liberal Party of Minnesota in 2002.

Green Party of the United States (Green Party)

The Green Party – the informal US-affiliate of the left-wing, environmentalist European Greens movement – scored a major achievement when it convinced prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending just over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place – 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore’s campaign – answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%) – seemingly depriving Gore of wins in some key states. More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning that the party will still be ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004 (Note: a third Nader run is still possible as he said “I haven’t ruled out going in 2004″ in February 2002). Until 2001, the Greens are largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. This faction – formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) – is the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The ASGP voted in 2001 to convert from an umbrella coordinating organization into a formal and unified national party organization. Other useful Green Party links and information can also be found at the Green Parties of North America (unofficial), Green Information (unofficial), Green Pages (official online magazine), Green Party News Circulator (official – recent news clippings about the party) and Green Party Election Results sites (unofficial). The official youth wing of the party is the Campus Greens. Strong local Green Parties exist – with ballot status – in a handful of states. The Green Party Platform 2000 sets forth the party’s official views. The Green Alliance is an officially sanctioned, national network of Green Party political clubs.

The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA)

The G/GPUSA is the older, smaller and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties. While the GPUSA also nominated Nader for President in 2000, Nader rejected the G/GPUSA nomination and embraced the other Green party. Prominent Nader campaign strategist Jim Hightower described the two Green factions as follows in 2001: “There are two Green party organizations – the [Green Party of the US] whose nomination Ralph accepted and the much smaller one [G/GPUSA] … on the fringes … [with] all sorts of damned-near-communistic ideas.” Some in the G/GPUSA protested that Hightower’s comments were a bit unfair – but read the G/GPUSA 2000 Platform and decide for yourself. While the Green Party and the rival G/GPUSA appear to be very similar – they advocate tactical (and some ideological) differences and somewhat compete with claims to the titular leadership of the national Green movement. The G/GPUSA largely emphasizes direct action tactics over traditional electoral politics. A majorty of the G/GPUSA delegates voted that the party’s 2001 convention to merge into the Green Party of the US – but the motion ultimately failed for lack of the required 2/3 majority. That outcome prompted many of the G/GPUSA activists to independently jump to the Green Party of the US – forming a new leftist caucus within the Green Party of the US – and leaving the G/GPUSA as a sizably diminished and more dogmatically Marxist party.

Independence Party

After two years of openly feuding with Ross Perot’s allies in the Reform Party, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura and his supporters bolted from the party to launch the new Independence Party in February 2000. In departing, Ventura denounced the Reform Party as “hopelessly dysfunctional” and far too right-wing (in its embrace of Pat Buchanan’s candidacy). While this splinter party shared the Reform Party’s call for campaign finance and other political reforms, Ventura’s organization disagrees with the more social conservative and trade protectionist views espoused by many new leaders in the Reform Party. The IP – which is entirely under the control of Ventura and his allies – describes itself as “Socially Inclusive and Fiscally Responsible.” Like Ventura, the IP is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-medical marijuana, pro-gun rights and fiscally moderate. The IP fielded a slate of Congressional and state candidates in Minnesota in 2000. Ventura said he hoped to take this Minnesota party national and possibly field a Presidential nominee in 2004. However, as of 2002, the IP had nascent affiliate parties organizing in just a handful of states. Ventura’s retirement decision in 2002 was also a blow to the IP. Retired Congressman Tim Penny – a former Democrat – was the IP nominee for Minnesota Governor in 2002, but he finished a distant third. Also in 2002, IP co-founder Dean Barkley became the first IP member to serve in Congress when Ventura appointed him to the US Senate to complete the two months of a term left open by the death of the incumbent. The Independence Party Campus Network is the student wing of the party.

Independent American Party

The small Independent American Party has existed for years in several Western states – a remnant from the late Alabama Governor George Wallace’s once-powerful American Independent Party of the 1968-72 era. Converting the unaffiliated IAP state party organizations – united by a common Religious Right ideology (similar to the Constitution Party) – into a national IAP organization was an effort started in 1998 by members of Utah IAP. The Idaho IAP and Nevada IAP subsequently affiliated with the fledgling US-IAP in late 1998 … and the party established small chapters in 15 other states since then. The various IAP state parties endorsed Constitution Party nominee Howard Phillips for President in 1996 and 2000. In December 2000, the IAP’s national chairman issued a statement noting that third parties in general registered a “dismal” performance in the Presidential election – and questioned the IAP’s future participation in Presidential campaigns. Instead, he suggested that the IAP limit itself to congressional, state and local races in the future. In 2001, the IAP voted to formally associate with the Independent National Committee (INC), an umbrella organization for like-minded third parties. Based upon that affiliation, the IAP in 2002 “adopted” over 50 candidates from various other conservative parties.

Labor Party

The Labor Party is a liberal entity created in 1996 by a sizable group of labor unions including the United Mine Workers, the Longshoremen, American Federation of Government Employees, California Nurses Association and many labor union locals. The party says it was formed because “on issues most important to working people -– trade, health care, and the rights to organize, bargain and strike -– both the Democrats and Republicans have failed working people.” Ideologically, they seem close to the style of the late, labor-friendly Vice President Hubert Humphrey and US Senator Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party circa 1960s. A new party, they endorsed their first state and federal candidates in 1998 in Wyoming (“Green/Labor Alliance”) – and two more candidates in local races in California and Ohio in 2001 – but none since then. This group seems closely aligned ideologically with the New Party. The Labor Party has adopted a policy of “running candidates for positions where they can help enact and enforce laws and policies to benefit the working class and where we can best advance the goals and priorities of the Labor Party.” The party also gets involved in local and state ballot initiatives. The Labor Party held a national convention in 2002 and seems to be making some efforts to revive itself as a forum for the debate of issues.

Libertarian Party

The LP, founded in 1971, bills itself as “America’s largest third party.” Libertarians are neither left nor right … they believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade, etc.). The LP espouses a classical laissez faire ideology which, they argue, means “more freedom, less government and lower taxes.” Over 400 LP members currently hold various – though fairly low level – government offices (including lots of minor appointed officials like “School District Facilities Task Force Member” and “Town Recycling Committee Member”). Typically, the LP fields more local candidates than any other US third party – although the LP has clearly been eclipsed by the Greens in size since 1996 in terms of having the largest third party following and garnering the most media attention. Former 1988 LP Presidential nominee Ron Paul is now a Republican Congressman from Texas – although Paul is still active with the LP. The LP’s biggest problem: Ron Paul, former NM Governor Gary Johnson, PJ O’Rourke, the Republican Liberty Caucus and others in the GOP are working to attract ideological libertarians into the political arena – arguing they can bring about libertarian change more easily under the Republican label. LP Presidential nominee Ed Clark carried over 921,000 votes (1.1%) in 1980. Subsequent nominees for the next dozen years, though not as strong as Clark, typically ran ahead of most other third party candidates. LP Presidential nominee Harry Browne carried over 485,000 votes (5th place – 0.5%) in 1996 and 386,000 votes in 2000 (5th place – 0.4%). The LP has affiliates in all 50 states. The LP web site features a link to the World’s Smallest Political Quiz … take the quiz and see if you’re a libertarian (a bit simplistic – but interesting just the same). Keep up on the latest from the LP by reading the Libertarian Party News online. The College Libertarians also maintain a web directory. A “reform” faction (anti-Browne) within the party attempted to wrest control in 1999-2000 away from the incumbent leadership (pro-Browne), alleging that the controlling faction among the incumbents have serious ethical conflicts of interest as to which favored consultants receive the bulk of the LP’s money (note: the incumbents denied the allegations and held control of the LP’s top posts … but this internal dissention is likely to continue for a long while). Other related sites are: American Liberty Foundation (Browne’s group) and GrowTheLP.org (LP outreach).

Light Party

The Light Party is is a generally liberal party – falling somewhere between the Greens and New Age feel of the Natural Law Party – and seems strongly centered around of party founder “Da Vid, M.D., Wholistic Physician, Human Ecologist & Artist” (he was also a write-in candidate for President in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 – and seems to be the only visible leader of the party). This San Francisco-based party’s platform promotes holistic medicine, national health insurance, organic foods, solar energy, nuclear disarmament and a flat tax. Da Vid claims the party has “millions” of supporters – but he counts everyone who supports any position advocated by the party. The party does not seriously seek to elect candidates but advance an agenda. Not that it has anything to do with politics, but the party does sell a nice CD of relaxing New Age music.

Natural Law Party

Along with the Libertarian Party, the NLP was been steadily gaining votes over the past few years (although they lost some ground in the 2000 elections). The NLP – under the slogan “Bringing the light of science into politics” and using colorful imagery – advocates holistic approaches, Transcendental Meditation (TM), “yogic flying,” and other peaceful “New Age” and “scientific” remedies for much of our national and international problems. Nuclear physicist John Hagelin was the NLP Presidential nominee in 1992 (ballot status in 32 stares – 39,000 votes – 0.04%), 1996 (ballot status in 44 states – 7th place – 110,000 votes – 0.1%) and 2000 (ballot status in 39 stares – 7th place – 83,000 votes – 0.08%). Hagelin and the NLP also made a failed bid to capture control of the Reform Party in the course of the 2000 campaign – working with the Perot forces to thwart Pat Buchanan’s efforts – although the NLP did attract some supporters from the breakaway factions within the disintegrating Reform Party. The NLP also made a brief grab for control of the Green Party, but that effort quickly fizzled. In the end, the Reform/Green moves in 2000 helped Hagelin capture quite a lot of headlines but produced less results for the party than the 1996 campaign. In 2002, the NLP tried a new strategy of stealthy infiltration by running NLP activists as candidates under various party labels including NLP, Democratic, Republican, Green and Libertarian. In 2004, the NLP is actively supporting the Presidential candidacy of Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich shares their “New Age” views and has close ties to Hageling and the NLP national leaders in Iowa. Although started in the US, there are now NLP affiliates around the globe. In addition to the national ticket, the NLP regularly fields fields a good amount of Congressional and local candidates throughout the nation. The NLP was founded by followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (the founder of the TM movement – a movement that some have labeled as a cult) – and many of these TM/Maharishi folks still play a major role in the leadership, although the NLP now claims that many others outside the TM movement are also active in today’s NLP leadership. The NLP youth affiliate is the Student Natural Law Party Club. The Institute of Science, Technology & Public Policy think tank is also closely associated with the NLP.

New Party

This leftist party advocates a “democratic revolution” to advance the cause of “social, economic, & political progress” in America. Their agenda is much in the style of the Western European socialist and labor movement – and somewhat similar to that of the late-1990s formed Labor Party (but the NP has more of a controlled growth outlook on environmental issues). Rather than fielding their own national slate or local candidates, the New Party has taken to largely endorsing like-minded candidates from other parties (mainly pro-labor Democrats like Chicago Congressman Danny K. Davis) and focusing on grassroots organizing. An amusing question: if the New Party lasts for 50 years, will they rename themselves the Old Party (or the “Fifty-Something” Party)? The New Party, to date, has endorsed candidates in about 400 local races around the country, and has active affiliate chapters in some communities. The NP site details the party’s long-term strategy.

New Union Party

Founded in 1980 by defectors from the Socialist Labor Party, this DeLeonist militant democratic socialist party “advocates political and social revolution” but denounces violence and is “committed to lawful activities to overthrow the capitalist economic system.” The NUP fielded its first candidates in 1980 – but has fielded few candidates since then. The site features party history, an archive of past articles and an online “Marxist Study Course.”

Peace & Freedom Party

Founded in the 1960s as a left-wing party opposed to the Vietnam War, the party reached its peak of support in 1968 when it nominated Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver for President. Although a convicted felon, Cleaver carried nearly 37,000 votes (ironically, Cleaver ultimately became a Reagan Republican in the early 1980s – then a crack addict in the late 1980s – before emerging as an environmental activist in the late 1990s). Famed “baby doctor” Benjamin Spock – a leftist and staunch opponent of the Vietnam War – was the PFP Presidential nominee in 1972. Since then, the small party has largely been dominated by battling factions of Marxist-Leninists (aligned with the Workers World Party), Trotskyists and non-communist left-wing activists. The PFP today is small, with activities largely centered in California. In 1996, the PFP successfully blocked an attempt by the WWP to capture the PFP’s Presidential nomination (and a California ballot spot) for their party’s nominee. In a sign of the party’s serious decline in support, the PFP’s poor showing in the 1998 statewide elections caused the party to lose its California ballot status. Likewise, they were unable to regain official ballot status by successive failed petition attempts for the 2000 and 2002 elections. However, the PFP finally regained its ballot status in 2003 – and is already fielding candidates in 2004 for Congress and other offices.

Prohibition Party

“If you are a reform-minded conservative and a non-drinker, the Prohibition Party wants you,” exclaimed an official party message in 2002. The Prohibition Party – founded in 1869 and billing themselves as “America’s Oldest Third Party” – espouses a generally ultra-conservative Christian social agenda mixed with anti-drug and international anti-communist views. The party’s strongest showing was in 1892, when John Bidwell received nearly 273,000 votes (2.3% – 4th place). Long-time party activist Earl F. Dodge has run as the Prohibition Party’s presidential nominee in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and again in 2004. Dodge received just 208 votes in 2000 – the party’s worst electoral showing ever. The party also fields a few local candidates from time to time – but 2002 was the first time since the 1860s that the party failed to field any candidates for any public office. An additional party-related organization is the Partisan Prohibition Historical Society, a group of party activists (somewhat independent of Dodge’s control) that want to turn Prohibition Party policy into law. The anti-Dodge folks – led by new National Chairman Don Webb – seem to have wrested control of the party by fall 2003, and have now demoted Dodge to just be the party’s “provisional” nominee for President. This is largely a matter of semantics, as Dodge will continue to run as the party’s nominee and the party will back him if he secures ballot status in some states. If he doesn’t gain ballot status, the party vows to hold a new nominating convention in Spring 2004 to pick a new ticket. Howeverm all of this in-fighting could result in the party being Presidential nominee on the ballot for the first time since 1872.

Reform Party

Once of rapidly growing, populist third party, the Reform Party shifted far to the right in recent years – but then experienced massive waves of conservative defections away into the Constitution Party and the new America First Party in 2002. First, some history: after running as an Independent in 1992, billionaire Texas businessman Ross Perot founded the Reform Party in 1995 as his vehicle for converting his independent movement into a permanent political party. In 1996, Perot ran as the Reform Party’s presidential nominee (8,085,000 votes – 8%). Although an impressive showing for a third party, it was much less than the 19 million votes Perot carried as an independent candidate back in 1992. The party traditionally reflected Perot’s center-conservative fiscal policies and anti-GATT/NAFTA views – while avoiding taking any official positions on social issues (although much of this group seemed to hold generally libertarian social views). The RP was plagued by a lengthy period of nasty ideological battles in 1998-2000 involving three main rival groups: the “Old Guard” Perot faction, the more libertarian Jesse Ventura faction, and the social conservative Pat Buchanan faction. A fourth group – a small but vocal Marxist faction led by RP activist Lenora Fulani – generally backed the Perot faction during these fights. To make this even more confusing, the Perot faction ultimately turned to Natural Law nominee and Maharishi follower John Hagelin as its “Stop Buchanan” candidate for President. After several nasty and public battles, the Ventura faction quit the RP in Spring 2000 and the old Perot faction lost control of the party in court to the Buchanan faction in Fall 2000 (and Perot ultimately endorsed Bush for President in 2000). That gave the Buchanan Brigade the party’s $12.6 million in federal matching funds. Within months, the Buchanan allies won control of nearly the entire party organization. Along with Buchanan’s rise to power in the party, the party made a hard ideological shift to the right – an ideological realignment that continues to dominate the RP. In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, it is clear that Buchanan failed in his efforts to establish a viable, conservative third party organization (comprised largely of disenchanted Republicans). Buchanan was on the ballot in 49 states, captured 449,000 votes (4th place – 0.4%) – and later told reporters that his foray into third party politics may have been a mistake. His weak showing also meant that the party is ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004. The new RP had the opportunity to become the leading social conservative third party (think of it as a Green Party for the right) – but more internal conflicts made this impossible. In Spring 2002, former Buchanan VP runningmate Ezola Foster and the California and Maryland RP leaders jumped to the Constitution Party. Almost simultaneously, the entire RP leadership in nearly 20 other states (the core of the Buchanan Brigade folks) defected en masse to form the new America First Party – delivering a demoralizing and devastating blow the the future viability of the RP. The remaining pieces of the RP now appear to be trying to reorganize back into a more centrist party – similar to the original one Perot wanted to create in the 1990s. But – without Perot’s involvement (and deep pockets) – even a new, centrist RP may have serious trouble rebuilding itself. Another official RP site is the State Party Organizations/RPUSA.

The Revolution

This party – simply named “The Revolution” – seems to be an ideological hybrid between libertarianism and environmentalism, with a dash of New Deal liberal views thrown into the mix. The Revolution’s 20-point platform calls for the legalizations of all victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.), the use of clean energy to stop global warming, massive tax cuts, an end ot corporate welfare, military spending cuts, an emphasis on human rights in foreign policy decisions, abolishing the CIA, government funding of the sciences to encourage “altruistic scientific and technological projects,” and a promise to “repeal five times as many laws as we pass.” The party’s leader – a digital culture journalist and cyberprankster who uses the pen name R.U. Sirius – made a whimsical write-in bid for President in 2000.

Socialist Party USA

The SPUSA are true democratic socialists – advocating left-wing electoral change versus militant revolutionary change. Many of the SP members could easily be members of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party. Unlike most of the other political parties on this page with “Socialist” in their names, the SP has always been

Related items

• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• How to Have a Mature Political Chat
• Political Lies And Global Warming
• San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs California Political Lawyer Analyzes Political Campaign Finance Laws
• Wireless Internet is a Political Issueâ?¦again

From skillful caricaturists to passionate crusaders for political causes, Israeli artists have throughout history in one form or another created a political work of art. Whether biblical stories of Jewish bravery and martyrdom, the birth of Zionism or more modern examples of courage, political art has always played a part in the soul of Israeli creations of art. At the same time, even in modern times of today artists are often scared to link their creations to history and politics.

In the following, this article examines four aspects analyzing the issue of art & politics.

Artists & Politics

The first aspect addressing the subject of artists and politics examines the extent of public involvement by Israeli artists in taking a political standpoint expressed through their art paintings.

From a democratic point of view which seeks to protect freedom of expression, it is important that art work tackle political issues and influence public debate

However, the problem in Israel for artists who want to express an anti-establishment view is the concern over the fact that the establishment represents their main source of support and financing. While those who want to back up the establishment are not doing so out of fear of being accused by their artist friends that their creative work is influenced by economic reasons. As such it can be concluded that in our time the majority of Israeli artists are “fearful” when it comes to touching upon political issues.

Politicians & Art

In the second aspect addressing politicians and art, I examine the involvement and understanding of political leaders in the creations of art. There is no doubt, that an artistic point of perspective opens horizons contributing to the development of a more open-minded way of thinking.

For this reason, Israeli leaders – whose personalities are often channeled through the security and/or party platform â?? should show interest in the arts as a tool for personal development which can widen their world view.

From a public point of view, a politician, who has knowledge and proven interest in cultural issues, will be considered as having preferable characteristics of experience and knowledge.

Politics in Art

Addressing the third aspect of politics in art, the following questions I believe are at the heart of the issue: To what extent does the political and public activity of the artist influence the artistic evaluation of his creations in the present and the future? If the official establishment wants the prestige of a particular artist can it increase or decrease the value of his art?

Art in Politics

In the fourth aspect of art in politics I raise the question if to a certain extent there is an artist at work in the political making? Can we make the assertion that certain people have a political-artistic talent which makes it easier for them to succeed in the political arena?

In this context, I very much believe, that in order to be a player in the political arena winning public opinion, a leader needs to be creative and have strong interpersonal skills combining artistic elements.

Related items

• Art & Politics â?? Four Aspects
• Politics: the Ugliest Fascination on Earth
• Learning Politics Using Board Games
• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• Political Parties of the US

We love to chat about many things. People have different favorite topics to talk about. When you have a particular interest in mind, you look for those chats that will suit your needs best. If you like a mature chat, politics is definitely for you. Politics is a topic that many like to steer clear of. This is mainly because nothing conclusive emanates from it. It really does not matter where you are, politics will always spark different emotions. There are chats that have totally banned politics from discussions and there are those who specialize in political issues. There are very many chat forums which will host politics as their chosen topic of focus. Life is politics and, there is no way of avoiding it at some point in our lives. Therefore, the importance of politics cannot be underestimated. However, when you wish to engage in a political chat, there are several things that you need to consider. If you are chatting in chats where politics is common, there will be rules put in place to guide you. Therefore, the first thing before you engage in a political chat is to look at the rules.

Rules need to be followed for many reasons. It is through rules of a political chat forum that you will get to know what is acceptable and what is not. Just like a game, you need to know what to do so that you can gain as much as you can. In this case, rules will enable you know how to conduct it. Rules will also show you where trouble is and, you can avoid it. For example, you should never engage in personal attacks, you should never use insults to make your point heard and also you should never appear to demean any political figure or a figure in a different political context. In other words, rules are put in place to ensure that your conversations are mature. Criticism should be creative or constructive and, when you fully understand this, you are ready to conduct a political chat. Sometimes, politics seems to have no rules at all. It is difficult to establish the line which you should not cross. However, with proper adherence to rules, you should be in a position to chat appropriately.

A political chat should be based on honesty. You should avoid major propaganda. Also, you should not insight people or make people believe what you think. People you are chatting with will also have a keen interest in politics and chances are that they have their very own opinion. You should not be compelled to agree with anyone. Personal sentiments on politics will always differ to great degrees. You must know why you are chatting in the first place. Your aim might be to see what opinions of others are. You might also be looking for solutions. Also, chats will enable you understand some of the things you do not. Many minds have a way of dissecting issues and having a better or clearer understanding to issues. With the above tips on how to chat politically, you should have a mature chat.

Related items

• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• Political Parties of the US
• Political Lies And Global Warming
• San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs California Political Lawyer Analyzes Political Campaign Finance Laws
• Wireless Internet is a Political Issueâ?¦again

There’s an old joke about how you can tell when a lawyer is lying – his lips move. Can the same thing be applied to politicians? Oops – most politicians ARE lawyers!
Is the public’s increasing apathy towards politics partly due to the perception that politicians can’t be trusted to give it to us straight? Have many of us become so jaded that we assume it’s normal for politicians to lie? Where does “spin” end and outright lying begin? Is silence on an important issue the same as lying about it? And why do politicians fail to discuss these issues with us in a frank and thorough manner?
Global warming may be the number one issue on which politicians lie. The scientific facts of global warming and its predicted adverse impacts are accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. Opponents of taking action on the issue are using a few scientists who still have doubts – or who find financial advantage in having doubts – to try to keep global warming in the “no clear evidence” category as long as they can. But there IS clear evidence of a long-term warming trend, and the consequences of continued inaction may indeed be globally catastrophic.
Unfortunately, those who call global warming the “greatest hoax of all time” are not alone in the Global Warming Liars Club. Even those politicians who are courageous enough to fight for action on the issue are not telling us the whole truth.
The Kyoto Protocol, whose implementation was rejected by the US Senate 94-0, would have required the US and other industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Given the amount that emissions have grown since 1990, that may seem like a daunting challenge. But the problem is really much worse than that, and it causes all but the bravest politicians to lie.
The Kyoto treaty, while a step in the right direction, is vastly insufficient to reverse the climate change trend. The global reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions probably needs to be more like 50% to have the desired effect, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. Even tougher is the fact that developing countries claim the current problem has mostly been caused by industrialized nations and that their developing economies should not have to be constrained to their current low levels of fossil-fuel use.
Given the seeming hopelessness of the challenge and the level of sacrifice that would appear to be required of the US to be part of a truly effective global solution, it’s easy enough to understand why most politicians would rather hide from the issue in general or cast doubt on it, and why even the politicians who do publicly support action on global warming are loath to discuss the whole truth.
But the potential effects of global warming, such as increased bad-weather events, coastal inundation, and – most seriously of all – disruption of global food production, are all likely parts of the future that will be faced by our children and successive generations if we don’t fix the problem. The challenge to finding solutions is one of leadership – leadership that will devise programs to:
1) replace our CO2-producing cars and power plants with clean technologies;
2) reduce sources of methane (another leading greenhouse gas) by confronting the issue of large-scale animal farming operations;
3) eliminate chemicals that cause global warming and replace them with non-problematic alternatives;
4) devise innovative programs to reduce the loss of forests (which serve as “carbon sinks,” thus keeping substantial amounts of CO2 from getting into the atmosphere).
Politicians and technologists will be needed to devise and implement solutions to global warming, and we consumers will have to be supportive with our dollars and our votes. But to get there, politicians must lead, not lie.
We saved the world from waves of Nazi stormtroopers, from hordes of Red Communists, and from the very ugly, unfriendly aliens in “Independence Day.” Surely we can also save it from a few kazillion tiny greenhouse gas molecules!

Related items

• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• Political Parties of the US
• How to Have a Mature Political Chat
• San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs California Political Lawyer Analyzes Political Campaign Finance Laws
• Wireless Internet is a Political Issueâ?¦again

As the 2008 Presidential Election goes into high gear, people from cities such as Del Mar, Rancho Santa Fe and La Jolla in San Diego to cities such as Laguna Beach, Anaheim, Irvine and Yorba Linda in Orange County, from Santa Maria to Santa Barbara to Ventura and Oxnard, to Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Ontario, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Fullerton to Indian Wells, Palm Springs, Palm Desert and La Quinta both individuals and candidates are having questions about campaign election finance laws and are looking for a California campaign election finance lawyer who can advise them.

In the world of political campaign finance law, in the past few elections, the most important issue has been soft money. Today, soft money is still important, but it ranks with the money being raised and spent by national party committees and with the greater use of the internet, 2008 has brought individual contributions to a higher level of importance that ranks in importance with soft money and national party money.

While soft money or unregulated money can be spent for any advertising that stops short of expressly advocating the election or defeat of an individual, it is that broad definition that allows it to still be used in advertising that goes so far as to allow the advertising to mention a candidate, and virtually call him or her out for their position on an issue. Such advertising is in many cases blatant negative advertising.

Corporate and labor PACs raise money from restricted individuals. Labor PACs raise money from their union employees, corporation PACs from managerial employees and stockholders and their family members.

In the last 60 days before a federal election, PACs hands are untied and they can not only advocate political issues but also mention federal election candidates in their in their advertising.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a political committee by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 to influence a federal election.

A 527 Group (which falls into the category of soft money) avoids regulation by the Federal Election Commission because they allegedly use and raise money only for the advocation of issues. Because the line between issue advocacy and candidate advocacy is so thin, the use of these groups is a source of heated debate about soft money. These Groups are not bound by the same restrictions on PACs.

An example of a 527 Group in the 2004 federal election campaign was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which ran advertisements on television that blatantly attacked John Kerry. The Group was later fined by the Federal Election Commission for specifically advocating the defeat of John Kerry. But by then, the damage had already been done.

Different rules apply to state and local elections. An individual intending to campaign for any elected office needs to know election finance rules and should consult with a political campaign finance attorney as soon as possible in forming their campaign.

Related items

• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• Political Parties of the US
• How to Have a Mature Political Chat
• Political Lies And Global Warming
• Wireless Internet is a Political Issueâ?¦again

All over the world ubiquitous broadband Internet access is bringing countries closer together. It surprises many when they find out that in China the average citizen has access to much faster download speeds and at a much lower cost than the average American. Of course the Chinese have to deal with the fact that they are viewing a censored Internet, but even that is getting better everyday. In Europe a person would be hard pressed to find a place they COULDNâ??T connect wirelessly to the Internet, while in the US users must go to a specific coffee shop or airport to do the same thing. It appears that the United States is behind the curve in offering affordable Internet access to its citizens, and short of socialized services what can be done?

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) introduced the Wireless Innovation Act of 2007 early this year to try and close the gap between the United States and other countries in the area of broadband Wireless Internet penetration within the consumer market. This very closely resembles the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 sponsored by John Kerry (WINN) which failed to pass the previous year but has been reintroduced as well. Specifically the bill is intended to â??make use of spectrum in the gaps or â??white spacesâ? between broadcast channels two and 51 when the transition from analog to digital television is complete in two years. With the capacity to transmit data over longer distances with less power, this prime spectrum, now reserved primarily for television broadcasting, could support a wide range of innovative wireless devices and services that arenâ??t useable in other frequenciesâ?, says Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) who is also co-sponsoring the bill.

WINN â??07 could be the ticket the country needs to increase the consumer market penetration of broadband wireless Internet, which would of course bring about new products and services both obvious and unknown. This type of legislature is designed to take fast, decisive action and correct an obvious problem. This of course means it will be delayed. So where are our ground breaking bills now?:

H.R.1597 – To require the FCC to issue a final order regarding television white spaces.
Sponsor: Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] (introduced 3/20/2007)

Latest Major Action: 3/21/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

S.234 – A bill to require the FCC to issue a final order regarding television white spaces.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 1/9/2007)

Latest Major Action: 1/9/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

It is clear the decisive bill isnâ??t exactly tearing its way through the hallowed halls of the House and Senate. Of course bills take time to pass, and there is a lot of pork to be added to this one yet so we still have time. So why exactly is this bill important to the United States if its just going to let its citizens surf the Internet more easily? John Kerry said, â??The bill would serve communities large and small, enabling the delivery of broadband that will connect business owners with their customers, students with dynamic new learning resources and first responders with victims in crisis.â? With that in mind, the bill seems a bit more relevant to the county as something more than an entertainment device.

Related items

• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• Political Parties of the US
• Political Leaders are Now on the Internet
• How to Have a Mature Political Chat
• Political Lies And Global Warming

No matter where you live, politics probably plays a part in your day to day life. You might not immediately deal with political issues, but you can be sure that politics plays a part in what you do! Whether it is office politics deciding who gets that raise you’ve been hoping for; city politics determining where you are allowed to park downtown; county politics dictating your quarterly property tax or even nationwide politics deciding how your schools are funded, politics plays a part in your daily life.

It is important then that you understand what politics really is. Politics, at its core, is defined by Wikipedia as the process by which groups of people make decisions. At its core, politics sounds quite simple. What makes it complicated are the individuals involved in making the decisions. Because human beings are not perfect, the political system is never going to be perfect. This is something that most people don’t understand about politics. You can put all of the pomp and circumstance into politics that you want, in the end; it is more about human beings getting their way than about the process itself.

It has been said quite often that politics is a dirty business. In the United States Congress, for example, politics has taken on an air of hatred and manipulation. Many citizens of the United States feel that they are left out of the process of politics and that their elected representatives are more interested in scoring personal points than in working toward the betterment of their states and districts. In the last few decades special interest groups have taken on an entirely new role and lobbyists have become particularly vilified.

This disillusion toward politics is nothing new. Plato—the famous Greek philosopher—believed that all political systems were corrupt at their cores and that societies leaders should be chosen from an elite group of individuals who were began leadership training at birth. Aristotle argued that man is inherently political and that personal and political ethics are often the same thing.

One of the most famous political philosophers, Machiavelli advised that leaders of politics be brutal and manipulative and do whatever they could to retain their power. Machiavelli is studied today and his work is considered to be one of the leading authorities on how to behave in politics. Is it any wonder then, that the political systems of so many nations look corrupt?

The heart of politics is good: it is how laws are made and how individuals are judged by the societies that surround them. Without politics, nobody would know what was allowed and what was not allowed when they left the house. Unfortunately, many people view politics as a way to get ahead or to gain some sort of power over the people they live and work with. It is because of these “bad eggs” that politics has become regarded as an evil and ugly business.

For more information on politics, visit http://www.politicsmicroblog.com and http://www.englandmicroblog.com.

Related items

• Art & Politics â?? Four Aspects
• Learning Politics Using Board Games
• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• Art & Politics â?? Four Aspects
• Political Parties of the US

A patient of mine recently experienced an unusual problem. Apparently, she got out of bed in the middle of the night, walked outside into her garage and entered her sports car. She was changing her car clock when her partner, who was in a panic, located her in the car. My patient was awakened by her partner and was confused and bewildered as they left the garage to resume their evening’s sleep.

Sleep walking is not an unusual pattern. For many, it is an infrequent occurrence, but for others it is a lifelong experience. Recently, I have been wondering about the manner in which many of our citizens are “sleep walking” through the impact of our political landscape. As a society, we appear to be distracted and asleep at the wheel. It seems as if there is a chronic pathology among of our people characterized by naivety, indifference, and a lack of awareness to political and cultural issues.

I recall Jay Leno canvassing the streets of Los Angeles trying to find one American who could tell him how many Supreme Court justices serve on our highest bench and to identify one of their names. The responses were pathetic and called attention to the lack of political awareness of our citizenry. Recently, as my wife and I boarded a plane to return to Arizona, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was sitting in the third row of the plane. I was not aware of one on-coming passenger who seemed to recognize her or acknowledge her presence. When we deplaned and headed for the luggage area, while other passengers appeared to be oblivious to the relevance of the situation, I proceeded to introduce myself and carry on a brief conversation with her. As one of my 15 year old patients once said, “Why should I care about politics, I can’t change anything anyway.” Nevertheless, it is my belief that feeling powerless is never an excuse for sleeping through the political process.

Although I certainly respect and support our current troops deployed in Iraq and other locations, there is something quite disturbing about the false sense of patriotism displayed by Americans. For example, I believe many of us have trivialized the concept of war through the simplistic use of bumper stickers, ribbons and other insignias signifying troop support. What do these symbols really mean for most Americans? Are they true signs of patriotism by those who fully understand the impact and implications of our current war in Iraq? My brother, who was a Lieutenant and company commander in Viet Nam cringes at the naivety and lack of awareness that many Americans possess about the nature of terrorism, combat and military missions. Maybe if the military adopted a conscription policy, some Americans might rethink their form of patriotism? Maybe if they knew their own children would be subject to going off to Baghdad, they would reconsider the way they demonstrate their loyalty to our military efforts. You might recall what happened when the President tried to make nice with Congressman Jim Webb over the involvement of Mr. Webb’s son in the Iraq war. Congressman Webb bluntly told the President to mind his own business.

Americans tend to believe that if they project an image of patriotism, they are exempt from a deeper understanding of the implications of the war in Iraq. How many of our people are aware of how our wounded soldiers are being treated at Building #18 in Walter Reed Hospital? Do we understand that the hospital is under constant review for improper patient treatment and deplorable conditions? Are we aware that inpatient soldiers have complained about the unsanitary conditions at the hospital including rodents infesting the environment? How many in the Bush administration or Congress are aware of the conditions our soldiers are subjected to and do they care? Would any of us send our loved ones to heal in an environment like that? Is this how we support our troops? Shouldn’t we all be concerned about this issue? Instead we sleep walk through the military and political debate over the mission and purposes of the Iraq war. We believe that the political voices in Washington D.C. are more competent and convincing than our own. We take the easy way out from committing ourselves to being patriotic in the truest since of the word. We must walk the walk through political action, not words.

Will we sleep walk though the debate on global warming as our oil companies try to pay off researchers so they will reinterpret their findings to soften the implications of global warming? We minimize the problem by either ignoring it or by pretending to care by talking about minutiae such as using HOV lanes and not burning wood in our fireplaces as means of eradicating the problem of pollution. Is Al Gore’s documentary, Inconvenient Truth, really that inconvenient that we are willing to deny its truth? Our war in Iraq will continue to kill and maim many, but global warming has the potential to kill us all. Will we sleep walk through this problem by displaying our symbolic bumper stickers or will we attack the problem with action? It will not be the terrorists who do us in, for the enemy is at home.

Americans can no longer afford to sleep walk through the critical political issues that we face globally. Our indifference, lack of awareness, denial, shallowness, and lack of motivation will only serve to escalate the dangers that we confront. It will not be “the axis of evil” that consumes us but our own ignorance and laziness.

Related items

• Paul Robeson: the Forgotten Victim of Political Hate
• Political Parties of the US
• How to Have a Mature Political Chat
• Political Lies And Global Warming
• San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs California Political Lawyer Analyzes Political Campaign Finance Laws