Alex Van Allen,
Founder and Chair, A.S.P.
When the party is over, join ours. TM
AMERICAN
CENTRIST COALITION
CONQUISTACORPS
ECONOMIC
ENGINEERING
END
OF HISTORY CRITIQUE
ESSAYS
ON ISSUES
EUGENICS
AND CLONING
KULTURKAMPF
THE
LINEAR COLONY CONCEPT
MEDIA
AND INFORMATION CENTER
MEMBERS
CENTER
NATURAL
LAW AND ETHICS
POLITICAL
ENGINEERING
RELIGION
AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY
THE
PRESERVATIONIST DOCTRINE
PROFIT
FROM DOOM NEWS
THE
SECULAR XENOPHYTE SYNTHESIS
A SOCIAL
SCIENCE CRITIQUE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE TECH
INTRODUCTION
CONSIDER THE
POSSIBILITIES
10
REASONS TO JOIN THE PARTY
A
PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN
THE CONCEPT
OF SYNTHESIS
PURPOSE
OF THE AMERICAN SYNTHESIS PARTY
MEMORANDUM
REGARDING
CORE DOCTRINE COMPLETION
OVERVIEW
OF THE CURRENT STATE OF AMERICAN POLITICS
A
THEORY OF NON-PARTICIPATION ON WHICH THE PARTY IS BASED
THE
CIVICS AND CRITICAL MODELS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
THE
CONSEQUENCES OF DECLINING PARTICIPATION
RESTORING
REPRESENTATIVENESS
IDEOLOGY
AND THE ELECTORATE
THE
PARTY DOCTRINE
THE
PARTY PLATFORM (ESD1)
JOIN TODAY
START
A LOCAL CHAPTER
ASP
CANDIDATE BOOT CAMP BRIEFING
ASP NEWS
PARTY
PUBLICATIONS AND PARAPHERNALIA
In a world of declining resources and growing populations, commodity prices are going to rise, no matter what. Government attempts to artificially stimulate the economy will increase the rate at which commodity prices rise, even as they may also provide temporary relief from a higher rate of unemployment. Over the longer term, rising commodity prices will translate into a higher rate of inflation. In turn, this will act as a brake on economic activity, and will lead to a chronically higher unemployment rate. The more that policy makers attempt to stimulate the economy, the more inflationary pressure will be generated. The combination of rising commodity prices, and excessive government spending that is designed to stimulate the economy, is like driving with one foot on the gas and one foot on the brake. Ultimately, the result will be catastrophic engine failure (i.e. high unemployment, rampant inflation, and a devaluation of the dollar).
The economic news that makes the headlines is only part of the picture. To add further perspective to our situation, ask yourself these questions: Ask yourself who enjoys life more; Americans or the Chinese? Now ask yourself who works harder; Americans or the Chinese? If you answered correctly, then perhaps you are beginning to grasp the nature and scope of what we are up against as a people and as a nation. In fact, we are entering a different world, and a world that most Americans are unfamiliar with.
Ever since the end of World War II, life has been relatively good for most Americans. Now, for an ever increasing number of Americans, life is going to become more difficult. There are simply too many bills coming due for there to be any other result. Decades of corruption and mismanagement by both Republicans and Democrats alike are mainly to blame. Yet, the vast majority of Americans themselves are not totally blameless. After all, they elected these Republicans and Democrats. They embraced the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism as ways of advancing their own particular interests, often at the expense of the public interest over the longer term. And, they failed to do what needed to be done; which was to unconditionally support the kind of revolutionary program that would have been able to turn Washington on its head. Thus, to some extent, average Americans are to blame. And now, so it would seem, they must reap what they have sown. Undoubtedly, a very bitter harvest lies ahead for all of us, even though all of us are not to blame.
In the new world that Americans are entering, the quest to maximize happiness over the shorter term will no longer be the highest value. Rather, for increasing numbers of Americans, the pursuit of happiness will be deferred, as concerns with mere survival begin to take precedence. To be a rational participant in this new environment, and to stand the best chance of improving your prospects in the future, you will need reliable information, and lots of it. The sites that make up the ASP network are a valuable source of this information. By carefully reading, understanding and considering the information contained in these sites, you will become a more well informed political participant, and a better citizen. And most importantly, you will gain the knowledge that you need to help change the course of our civilization.
An Appeal From the Chairman
Even though many people may totally
agree with the point of view expressed in this and other party websites,
for one reason or another, they fail to join. One of the main things that
keeps people from joining a small party like the ASP is that, in their
minds, such a small party cannot be effective. I agree. A party cannot
be effective as long as it is small. However, a party cannot grow as long
as people think that it is futile to join it. At some point, you have to
take a leap of faith, and you have to believe that you can make a difference.
And keep in mind that, at some point, the party's fortunes could change
dramatically, virtually over night.
Due to a phenomenon called "social contagion," people can suddenly notice and begin to join a political or social movement in large numbers. At some point, this could easily happen to the ASP, and the party could enjoy a meteoric rise from obscurity. However, at this stage of the party's development, we really don't need or even want "joiners." What we need more than anything else is a solid core of "true believers." That is, we need a small closely knit group to serve as a leadership pool, and to help build a foundation for the party. My own efforts to build this foundation are almost done. I have devoted the better part of my adult life to discovering and assembling the principles and ideas that I think will give us the best chance as a nation. Other than making a few videotapes and holding public lectures in an attempt to appeal to people at a more personal level, there is not much more that I can do. The rest is up to you. Accept the challenge!
Consider the possibility that most people are so focussed on their personal lives that they are missing the big picture.
Consider the possibility that, on its current course, Western Civilization is likely to experience a catastrophic failure.
Consider the possibility that when a civilization bites the dust, it can take you with it.
Consider the possibility that, especially in a democracy, the people have the power to change the course of their civilization.
Consider the possibility that neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on the truth.
Consider the possibility that liberalism and conservatism could be sub-optimal and obsolete belief systems.
Consider the possibility that belief systems like liberalism and conservatism could be posing a threat to our civilization.
Consider the possibility that liberalism and conservatism could distort the way that people think about the public interest.
Consider the possibility that some form of "ideological synthesis" will be more likely to serve the public interest over the longer term than either liberalism or conservatism.
Consider the possibility that many of the same forces that have led to the collapse of human civilizations throughout history are still at work today.
Consider the possibility that if our civilization should fail, individual freedoms and security will be endangered .
Consider the possibility that with your help, we will stand a much better chance of averting disaster.
These are ten of the most important reasons why you should join the ASP. These are also ten of the most important reasons why no one should want to identify themselves as either a liberal or a conservative.
1)Neither liberals nor conservatives
have a monopoly on the truth.
2)Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies
which tend to systematically distort the truth.
3)Liberalism and conservatism tend
to distort the distribution of economic resources in society in favor of
certain groups.
4)On any given issue, a synthesist
is a more credible source than either a liberal or a conservative.
5)If liberals know that you are a conservative,
they will tend to reject your arguments, no matter how sensible they are.
6)If conservatives know that you are
a liberal, they will tend to reject your arguments, no matter how sensible
they are.
7)Many of society's most critical problems
cannot be resolved within a liberal or conservative framework
8)The public interest cannot be maximized
by reference to either liberal or conservative principles alone.
9)Liberalism and conservatism give
rise to unhealthy divisions in the political process.
10)Synthesis is an important element
of the most functional ideology.
Prior to the emergence of synthesis as a significant political alternative, liberalism and conservatism were the only major conceptual frameworks available for people to organize their political thoughts to form coherent ideologies. The fact that these ideologies are suboptimal means of determining the public interest was not a consideration for most people. Most people approached these ideologies from the standpoint that what was best for them personally was also best for society as a whole. Hence, the tendency for society to become divided along lines of liberal and conservative ideologies. The process of forming an ideological identity based mainly upon considerations of self interest doesn't mean that people don't have a concern for the general welfare. Rather, their judgment about the general welfare tends to be distorted by their considerations of self interest. Consequently, people will tend to resort to suboptimal ideologies (like liberalism and conservatism) which seem more likely to serve their interests over the short term, even though such ideologies tend to impose long term consequences on society that will eventually come back to impose costs on them personally.
According to the understanding of ideology which emerges in the field of political science, the main criterion for a belief to be "ideological" is that it should be a distortion of fact which tends to advance one's own interests at the expense of the community interest. Thus, liberals advance an agenda which tends to be self-serving, and conservatives do the same; even as both groups delude themselves into believing that their respective notions of the public good are "best for society." By contrast, synthesists tend to look at community interests more comprehensively, and without exclusive reference to how particular policies will impact particular groups. Because of their greater need for cognition, and their reluctance to use ideology as a guide, the decision making models which synthesists use tend to reflect a more complete understanding of the cause and effect relationships which govern the operations of human societies. Correspondingly, synthesists aspire to view problems of human society from an Archimedean point, or a theoretical point of ideological neutrality. From this point, synthesists are most concerned with achieving the optimal functionality of a given society, as an abstract exercise. By contrast, liberals and conservatives are mainly concerned with advancing particular interests within society. Consequently, their opposing interests typically result in opposing, or "polarized" views.
In an environment of rising informational complexity, the polar modes of processing political information will demonstrate increasingly limited utility. Once people begin to realize that they cannot consistently use either of the polar ideologies in such a complex informational environment, they will tend to resort to more complex, synthetic strategies to more efficiently organize and process complex political information. This will be true of political elites in particular. While political elites will continue to support one of the polar ideologies as a political expedient (in order to secure the support of their more ideologically motivated constituents and issue activists), they are generally quite capable of transcending these more limited frameworks for conceptualizing the public interest. A majority of elites have the ability to think in more integratively complex and synthetic terms, despite the fact that they often fail to demonstrate this ability out of considerations of political self-interest.
Historically, synthesists have been less visible and vocal participants in the political process. When they have been active in politics, they have tended to go about their work more quietly. Overall, synthesists have tended to be less politically active than liberals or conservatives for a number of reasons. First, most of them recognize that, at this stage, they are vastly outnumbered by liberals and conservatives. Secondly, they are commonly not as strongly motivated by the kind of polarizing ideological passions that tend to motivate liberals and conservatives. But, being more reasonable, and being less motivated by passion can be a double edged sword. Ideological zeal can be a strength where participation in politics is concerned, even as it can interfere with forming more reasonable views on the issues. While liberals and conservatives derive their passion largely from the fact that their ideologies can strike an affective chord deep within the human psyche, synthesists can ultimately hope to have a more rational source of zeal, namely, their passionate commitment to reason and knowledge. Over time, this zeal can lead synthesists to become more "conscious of their class," and more engaged in the political process. And once synthesists have developed a consciousness of their class, and once their numbers have reached a certain point, it is likely that they will become much more visible and politically active. One of the main obstacles to the development of their class consciousness has been that, until recently, there was no widely accepted term to describe them. They were a people without a name. Now that they have a name, and a political party, it will be considerably easier for them to associate with one another.
I think the ideas in this and other party websites represent the best course for our nation, and, with enough popular support, they could mean a better life for us all. But no political ideas are workable unless large numbers of people come together to support them. It may be that the political tides against which the ASP has been battling will one day turn in its favor. Historically, as soon as a third party has shown signs of life, one of the major parties will take those ideas that seem to be gaining popularity and incorporate these ideas in its own platform. This is perhaps the main reason why the Democratic and Republican parties have remained viable for so long. This would actually not be a particularly bad fate for the ASP. In fact, I would like nothing better than for one or both of the major parties to steal ALL of the planks of my party's platform, and make them their own. However, I do not hold out much hope that this will happen. It is likely that many of the ideas that makeup the party philosophy are simply ahead of their time. If this is the case, then it will take some time for historical events to catch up with the party philosophy, and prove why it is the logical alternative to liberalism and conservatism. Ultimately, the party philosophy is more important than the party itself. The party is merely a vehicle for promoting this philosophy.
Despite the negative connotations that have become associated with the term, I believe that people need an "ideology" to give them a sense of meaning, purpose and guidance in their lives. I also believe that all ideologies are not created equal, and that they can be qualitatively ranked according to how well they function, how well they satisfy basic human needs, or according to how likely they are to be in the public interest over the longer term. And, from the beginning, I set out to create an ideology which my training in the social sciences indicated would be most conducive to the public interest over the longer term. I based my ideology on the presumption that neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on the truth, and that, depending on the issue, the best arguments or ideas might be closer to the political left, closer to the political right, or closer to the center. This is what the concept of "synthesis" is all about. It is about taking the best ideas, no matter where they come from, and making them part of a new and internally consistent whole. I believe that the philosophy of the ASP represents the best synthesis of liberal and conservative ideologies.
Since I founded the ASP in January of 2000, I have tried to keep to keep my personality out of the picture as much as possible. The party was never supposed to be about me personally, it was supposed to be about a system of ideas. My hope was that the party would eventually be able to succeed on the merits of its philosophy alone. I now realize that it was probably asking too much for people to accept the party philosophy based solely on its merits. Even the best ideas typically require promotion. For this purpose, I will begin holding seminars at various locations around the country. The seminars will be designed to convey basic information about the party philosophy to the general public, and to recruit potential organizers and members at the local level. The seminars will also give me an opportunity to meet and work with current party members at the local level. And most importantly, they will allow me to interview members who may, purely as a matter of expedience, run for public office under the label of one of the major parties. Finally, as part of a new effort to introduce the public to the ASP, I will begin recording a videotape lecture series covering all major aspects of the party and its philosophy.
Alex Van Allen,
Founder and Chair, A.S.P.
As a way of interpreting social, economic, and political realities, synthesists employ an approach that is initially just as skeptical of liberal views as it is of conservative views. Liberals believe that truths about human beings consistently favor policies which aggregate near the left of the ideological continuum. Conservatives believe that truths about human beings consistently favor policies which aggregate near the right of the ideological continuum. By contrast, synthesists believe that truths about human societies favor policies which are distributed throughout the ideological spectrum. Synthesists also believe that human societies in general, and the vast majority of social, economic, and political issues, are too complex to be understood by reference to either liberal or conservative principles alone. An understanding of society which is most likely to be maximally conducive to the survivability of the species is based upon a more eclectic and comprehensive understanding of human beings and their behaviors.
Synthesis is the means for escaping the outmoded ideological paradigms of liberalism and conservatism. There are good reasons to believe that a synthetic belief system will stand a better chance of being able to defy the limitations that have historically been associated with ideologies more generally. To begin with, a synthetic belief system is more conciliatory than either of the polar ideologies. One of the major goals of a synthetic belief system is to reconcile conflicting values associated with the polar ideologies. Because it is based upon a more extensive and eclectic knowledge base, and one which has a better grasp of aggregate human interests, synthesis can benefit from the knowledge bases of both polar ideologies (liberalism and conservatism). Also, because it accounts for the two major poles of human interests, or the totality of the normally occurring range of human temperamental essence (the normal range of variation in human temperaments and interests), it stands a better chance of actually being able to identify human interests at the species level that either of the polar ideologies standing alone.
Thus, to answer the question of where the ASP stands in relation to the great overarching political ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, the party philosophy is a "synthesis." That is to say, it is decidedly to the left on certain issues, and decidedly to the right on other issues. On still other issues, the party may hold positions that are closer to the center of the ideological spectrum. The position that the party takes on a particular issue is dictated by an understanding of its functions for society, and not by considerations of ideological orthodoxy, or by a desire to remain loyal to a particular ideology. Yet, where the party stands on various issues is more than just the result of mixing views that are more closely associated with either liberalism, conservatism or centrism. It also involves forming a complex system of intermediary structures between sets of potentially opposing ideas. It involves establishing complex interrelationships that exist between various issues in order to form a "comprehensively rational" picture of the public interest over the longer term.
The ideologies of liberalism and conservatism are increasingly showing signs of wear. They are showing signs of having run their historical course. The limitations of both belief systems are destined to become more apparent over time. Something must eventually take their place. Synthesis is the most likely alternative. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the number of people who rely on the idea of synthesis is growing. This includes both those who openly proclaim their support for the idea of ideological synthesis, or those who openly identify with the synthesis movement, and it includes the growing number of "closet synthesists," who, for one reason or another, want to pass themselves off as either centrists or moderates. It also includes people who are simply more even handed in their approach to issues, those who hold more eclectic world views, and those who want to distance themselves from the ideological extremes. Eventually, a mass exodus from liberal and conservative ideologies can be expected. The ASP is the most logical beneficiary of this flight from failing ideologies.
PURPOSE
OF THE AMERICAN SYNTHESIS PARTY
I think it is fair to say that the
party is almost over. The economy will soon be in chaos, and both Republicans
and Democrats will be scrambling about like rats on a sinking ship. This
is the opportunity that we have been waiting for. And, the worse things
get, the better our prospects become. As more and more people begin to
realize that neither conservative Republicans nor liberal Democrats can
save our republic in any form that they can recognize or appreciate, they
will look to our party for leadership.
The ASP is the most logical beneficiary of a complete loss of faith in the two party system. The ASP is the only third party that has the kind of ideological heavy artillery that will be needed to wage a successful war against Democrats and Republicans. Yet, at this stage, most Americans have never heard of the ASP. Most Americans have never heard of the idea of ideological synthesis. Most Americans don't know how this concept relates directly to their own long term interests. This is about to change. Republicans and Democrats have been unwittingly paving the way for this change. A weak President, combined with an ideologically divided and ineffective Congress, at a time of national crisis, is exactly what we need to set the stage.
When the Republican and Democratic parties have been thrown into disarray, and when no one appears able to resolve the economic crisis which they created, people will begin to seriously look for other alternatives. They will even begin to consider revolutionary alternatives. The main purpose of the ASP is to give Americans the option of a peaceful revolution, if they decide that revolution and sweeping change is what they want.
MEMORANDUM REGARDING CORE DOCTRINE COMPLETION
MEMORANDUM-0306
To: A.S.P. Members and Observers
From: Alex Van Allen, A.S.P. Chair
Re: Completion of the American Synthesis
Party Core Doctrine
As the party's core doctrine nears completion, I am reminded of how much time and effort has gone into it, and I don't just mean my own time and effort. The real brain trust behind the formation of the party doctrine includes a list of rare geniuses whose contributions have been made over a period of many centuries. This list includes Aristotle, Plato, Spinoza, Hegel, Kant, Locke, Madison, Jefferson and Marx, to name only a few. This list also includes contemporary scholars such as Fukuyama, Hayek, E.O. Wilson, Herrnstein & Murrray, R.K. Merton, H.J. Eysenck, and many others who are acknowledged in the reference sections of various party websites.
When I say that these individuals contributed to the doctrine, I don't mean that the party doctrine is simply a compilation of their ideas. For, at many points, the party doctrine deviates from the ideas of these scholars and philosophers entirely. At the same time, their work serves as a point of departure, without which the party doctrine could not have been completed. And while some of these scholars and philosophers, both ancient and modern, might not approve of the uses to which their work has been put, they would all likely agree that the resultant system of ideas which makes up the ASP core doctrine is truly "synthetic" and bears no resemblance or allegiance to either liberalism or conservatism.
Significance of the Core's Completion
The completion of the core doctrine
is significant for a number of reasons. First, it represents a body of
knowledge to be mastered as a requirement for assigning positions within
the party. Secondly, the core contains a set of principles which
individuals can identify themselves with, or distance themselves from,
as their knowledge and their conscience dictates (for the most concise
yet comprehensive statement of these principles, see the last section of
the last chapter in NATLAW.NET.) At this stage, if large numbers of people
either ignore or reject the doctrine, that's OK. Over time, events will
likely conspire to prove the doctrine right.
As I have said many times before, no third party has any remote chance of achieving viability unless it has a well defined and comprehensive doctrine. Although the doctrine is not a sufficient condition for the success of a third party, it is a necessary condition. Despite its key significance, one should not think of the completion of the core as a terminus. The party doctrine will eventually expand far beyond the core, but everything that follows should be thought of as an extension of the core.
The completion of the core doctrine should not be expected to have any immediate impact of the party's fortunes. Because of the core's depth and complexity, the national press will be very slow to pick up on it. Remember, the mainstream press is mainly in the business of superficially reporting current events and titillating emotions as a form of entertainment. During their free time, people generally do not want to be reminded of the serious issues that affect their lives, but over which they feel they have no control. This mentality will eventually come back to bite both the press and the public. It always has in the past. The laws of history have not been rescinded. Yet, it may be necessary for things to get considerably worse before the people feel they have sufficient incentives to devote serious attention to the issues that affect them, and before they seriously consider alternatives to liberalism and conservatism, such as the ASP core doctrine.
As it now stands, the core doctrine is a little over 2000 pages. The core is being published via the websites that makeup the party's primary network. If you attempt anything more than a casual perusal of these sites, be forewarned: At certain points, the doctrine is deep. Especially for the uninitiated, it can be difficult reading. If you have any questions, let me know. Because the party's membership is so small at this point, I will most likely be able to answer your questions personally.
Regards,
Alex Van Allen,
Founder & Chairman, ASP
Send your questions and comments about the party doctrine to ava333@mindspring.com
There are a number of indications that the polarization of the major parties has increased in recent years. First, there is a growing rift between the views held by the elites of both major parties and the views of their rank and file members. Secondly, congressional votes along party lines have become more frequent. As the polarization of the major parties has increased, and as these parties have become dominated by unrepresentative groups on the political left and the political right, many people have left the major parties to become independents and non-voters. Correspondingly, the membership of the major parties has declined, as a proportion of the total population. For those who continue to identify themselves as either Republicans or Democrats, the strength of their attachment to these parties has tended to weaken.
Currently, the vast majority of eligible voters in the United States do not vote. This can be interpreted as a symptom of either alienation or apathy. In all probability, both alienation and apathy have contributed to the dramatic increase in the number of non-voters. But whichever factor is predominant, the result is a large and growing mass of non-aligned individuals. This group represents a vast reservoir of potential support for a nascent third party. If a third party can successfully tap this reservoir of potential political power, it could mean fundamental changes for the two party system.
According to the conventional wisdom, those who abstain from voting simply don't care about politics. While this is undoubtedly true of a certain proportion of non-voters, it is not the primary reason that most people don't vote. Most people don't vote because they don't agree with the viewpoints of either major party. Many non-voters would be much more willing to participate in the electoral process if a political party existed which offered views which they could more easily agree with. The doctrine of the American Synthesis Party reflects many such views. However, this doctrine was not designed to simply stake out the most popular views on every issue. Some of the views that form the core of Synthesis Party doctrine may not be the most popular views over the short term. Nonetheless, these views have been included in the doctrine because there are sufficient reasons to believe that these views will prove best for the nation over the longer term. It is the public's responsibility to grasp why these views will ultimately prove to be in its best interest. In those cases where Synthesis Party doctrine does not coincide exactly with the prevailing majoritarian view on a particular issue, the doctrine will be backed by arguments that are sufficiently cogent to shift public opinion.
A
THEORY OF NON-PARTICIPATION ON WHICH THE PARTY IS BASED
The American Synthesis Party is premised,
in part, upon a theory of political non-participation. If certain key elements
of this theory are correct, the party's prospects for success will be greatly
enhanced. According to this theory, the record numbers of non-voters and
independents is directly attributable to a series of recent political developments.
The ideological polarization of the major political parties has increased
over recent years. At the same time, most Americans continue to hold a
complex mixture of liberal and conservative views on important issues.
Consequently, most Americans do not strongly identify themselves with either
the political left or the political right. Therefore, most Americans perceive
the ideologically polarized electoral and policy making processes to be
increasingly unrepresentative and out of touch with their views. As a result,
dissatisfaction with, and alienation from the political process have increased
dramatically over recent years. Increasing dissatisfaction and alienation
have contributed directly to the precipitous decline in the number of voters,
as a percentage of the total population, and to a corresponding increase
in the number of independents.
In the absence of a clear and decisive expression of majoritarian will, unrepresentative and ideologically extreme interest groups have been able to dominate many aspects of the candidate selection and policy making processes. In both the candidates they select, and the issue positions they adopt, the major parties tend to present the public with choices which reflect the unrepresentative views of their partys' elites and core activists. Faced with these choices, many voters find that they cannot caste a vote for a candidate of either major political party without also casting a vote for a continuation of the polarized political process. Because no viable third party has existed (up to this point) which might offer candidates and views which they might prefer, many Americans have ceased to participate in the political process altogether. Not only have they stopped voting, but many even refuse to respond to political polls.
Because the ideological polarization of the major parties has occurred over the course of many years, through a slow and incremental process, the public reaction to it has not been as sharp or as dramatic as one might expect. Most recently, the potential public response to the polarization has been mediated by a number of developments in the parties themselves, and in the economy. Frequently, candidates of both major parties will wear the mantle of centrism, in an attempt to appear less ideologically extreme. These attempts often succeed in deflecting a certain amount of public criticism which might otherwise be directed towards the polarized parties. Secondly, the fact that the economy has been extraordinarily good in recent years has had it own affect on public reaction to the polarization process. Specifically, the majority of Americans are now experiencing a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity. As long as these circumstances continue, most Americans want government to stay out of their lives as much as possible, and allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labors. During prolonged periods of peace and prosperity, most Americans appear to have less interest in politics. In effect, the political concerns of most Americans have become marginalized. Under these circumstances, the public discontent over the polarization of the parties has tended to remain latent.
In light of current political and economic circumstances, there remain basically two ways to interpret the record numbers of non-voters and independents. Using a variety of survey results and statistics, it is easy to reach the conclusion that the increasing numbers of non-voters and independents really is just an indication of record high levels of satisfaction, rather than the result of an increase in dissatisfaction or alienation. It can just as easily be argued that more people don't vote and don't identify themselves with either of the major political parties because they really can't stand either the candidates, or their positions on the issues. If the latter argument is more true than the former, it would represent a fundamental sea change in American politics which potentially favors third parties.
THE
CIVICS AND CRITICAL MODELS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
(note: This essay was written when economic
circumstances were much more favorable.)
A critical view of American politics
suggests that there is a large and growing segment of the population which
really despises the ideologically polarized and unrepresentative policy
making environment which currently exists. By extension, the vast majority
of Americans no longer vote because they harbor some deep seated attitudes
of resentment towards their political leaders, towards the political process,
and towards political institutions, such as the major parties. This model
stands in vivid contrast to the "civics" model of American politics that
is taught in most of our schools, and which continues to be shared by most
scholars, members of the press, and by the elites of both major parties.
Basically, the civics model holds that the two party system remains sound,
and that the Republican and the Democratic parties are the best institutional
means for Americans to select their candidates for elective office. At
the federal level, a third party victory is only a remote possibility,
under current circumstances. Third parties may come and go, but the venerable
Republican and Democratic parties will live on. These parties represent
the best of our political heritage and are among the most noble and enduring
features of our democracy. The major parties are responsive to the needs
of voters, and on this account alone, their survival is insured.
They represent the will of the people who are most actively engaged
in the political process. If there is any great ideological divide
between the parties, or any sharp contrast between their views on the issues,
these differences merely serve as indications that the parties are responding
to the needs of the electorate, and giving the electorate meaningful choices.
Since the ideological differences between the parties have never been greater,
then, by extension, meaningful choices for voters have never been greater,
in both candidates and issue positions. The fact that such differences
exist makes for a vital and dynamic political process.
According to the conventional wisdom of the civics model, crudely outlined in the paragraph above, the state of American civil and political life is generally healthy. There are no underlying dynamics affecting the political process which should cause us any particular concern. If record numbers of Americans choose not to vote, it is not because the two party system has failed to provide them with meaningful choices. Rather, most Americans don't participate in the political process because they are basically uninterested in politics and are basically satisfied with the way things are. There would seem to be some truth to this argument. For the economic conditions which might conduce to widespread political satisfaction do in fact exist. A larger proportion of Americans are now enjoying material prosperity than ever before. But, it would also seem that political discontent can occur, even in the midst of economic prosperity. When standards of living are high, and when people don't have to worry so much about where there next meal is coming from, at least some of them will devote more time to social and political concerns. Thus, even in the midst of unparalleled economic prosperity, political discontent can strengthen. It can remain dormant and largely unnoticed for years, only to manifest itself in unexpected ways, with unexpected force. A core argument of the critical perspective holds that a high degree of latent discontent with current political arrangements now exists, that it has been quietly building over recent decades, that its extent has been grossly underestimated, and that it has now reached a critical mass which will prove sufficient to sustain a viable third party.
By contrast, the civics model paints a generally rosy picture of the overall state of our nation's political health. But, because of certain system maintaining and legitimation functions which the civics model is intended to serve, conclusions which are based exclusively on this model are suspect. Hence, it becomes necessary to critique the civics model in light of its functions. When the civics model is examined more closely, in light of these functions, other conclusions become equally plausible.
The major function of the civics model is political socialization. The most important goals of the political socialization process are: imparting political norms to school children and young adults; teaching basic knowledge of our political institutions, practices, and traditions; and fostering support for our existing political institutions, including the major parties. The civics model is also intended to encourage people to participate in the political process, as it now exists. By depicting our political traditions in their most favorable light, the civics model helps reinforce and legitimize the two party system. Proponents of the model may acknowledge that serious problems exist with our political system. But, inevitably, they arrive at the conclusion that current institutional arrangements (including the two party system) will ultimately offer the best solutions.
If one attempts to view our political institutions through the lens of the civics model alone, one will tend to get a distorted view of the actual state of the nation's political health. By focusing on what is good about the system, the civics model serves to reinforce and legitimize existing institutional arrangements. The positive bias of the civics model makes it necessary to employ a critical perspective when we want to know more about what may be wrong with the system. By employing this perspective, and by focusing on different aspects of our political environment, it is possible to reach completely different conclusions about the state of our nation's political health. To get the most accurate and complete picture of the actual state of our nation's political health requires using both models. By looking at the system through the lens of the civics model, one is able to see what is right with the current system. By employing a critical perspective, one is better able to see what is wrong with the system. The critical model serves to correct the distortion caused by the civics model, and vice versa. Using both models in tandem, one can achieve the kind of stereoscopic vision that is needed to see the system as it actually is. Both models are useful for revealing different aspects of the total truth about our nation's political health. Both are necessary to achieve a total understanding of the actual state of our political system, and yet, neither is adequate standing alone.
The relative veracity of the civics model, versus the critical model, can be expected to change, as the political environment changes. At a particular point in time, one model or the other will tend to give a more accurate picture of the state of the nation's political health. Which model is likely to give the most accurate picture will be a function of the proportion of the population which views our political institutions favorably, versus the proportion which does not. If the number of Americans who believe that the political process is ideologically polarized, unrepresentative, and illegitimate is greater than the number who believe it is representative, legitimate, and functioning as it should, then the critical perspective will tend to give the more accurate picture of nation's political health. This will remain true, despite counterindications which may become evident in the form of polling results.
Polls are notoriously inaccurate. They do not register the opinions of millions of people who are either not polled or who simply refuse to be polled. Necessarily, the people who do respond to the polls constitute an unrepresentative sample of the total population. The already unrepresentative group which responds to polls is made even more unrepresentative, for a number of reasons. First, there is a phenomenon that social scientists refer to as "presentational concerns" which tend to distort survey results. Simply stated, when people give responses to questions in public, they are concerned with how they present themselves, and this concern tends to alter their responses. When people answer polls, they tend to feel a certain pressure to give the responses that they feel are most socially acceptable, or the ones that they feel the person conducting the poll is looking for. In general, people want to appear to be positive and they want to favorably impress those who are conducting the polls. Such presentational concerns tend to exaggerate positive sentiments about whatever is being surveyed. Thus, there is commonly a big difference between the attitudes that people are willing to express publicly, and the attitudes that they actually feel. But, it is the attitudes that people feel, rather than the attitudes that they express, which are most important for determining private actions such as voting, or for that matter, not voting. The fact that polls are conducted on political matters complicates matters further. When people are asked to publicly express an attitude towards their government, invariably, their responses tend to be more positive than the attitudes which they commonly feel. No one wants to be perceived as unpatriotic.
While a majority of those who respond to polls may appear to believe that our government is highly representative and legitimate, and while they may continue to rank relatively high on such dimensions as trust in government, and political efficacy, such results are misleading. Polls are notorious for finding the very results which the pollsters seek. The way that people respond to polls can be manipulated by pollsters, simply by changing the way that a question is phrased or asked. Researchers have found that they can generally get a person to give two completely different responses to what is basically the same question, simply by changing the way the question is worded, or by changing the inflection of voice used to ask the question.
Due to these factors, the very real possibility exists that the numbers of people who feel negatively about our political system are much larger than polls indicate. Not surprisingly, this latent political discontent would tend to support third party viability. Given all the flaws of even the best polling techniques commonly in use today, a major sea change in American politics could go largely undetected by the polls.
History is filled with examples of people who maintained blind faith in particular political institutions, only to be blindsided by events. For those who have the greatest vested interest in maintaining a particular system, it is a natural defensive reaction to gloss over its defects and to attempt to deny credibility to systematic attempts to change it. Presumably, we are not immune from such historical tendencies. Thus, despite many advances in the polling techniques employed by both social scientists and journalists, these historical tendencies give us sufficient reasons to believe that exclusive reliance on the civics model may lead to erroneous conclusions about the current state of our nation's political health.
The critical model suggests that the growing numbers of independents and non-voters really are the result of mounting dissatisfaction with, if not alienation from, the major parties, rather than the result of widespread satisfaction with the way things are. And though some measure of latent discontent has been a lasting feature of our democracy, it is the relative increase in the proportion of those who are discontent that is most significant. This change in proportion suggests that there really is something different and disquieting about the current political environment which is linked to some failure in the two party system.
To return for a moment to the conventional wisdom, supporters of the civics model hold that our political situation is basically unchanged; that the two party system is the best system; that the political process is a legitimate reflection of majoritarian will; and that to the degree that there is any latent contempt for the political process, such attitudes are only held by a relatively small and ineffective minority. This being the case, it remains the civic duty of all Americans to participate in the political process by regularly casting their votes, preferably for a member of one of the major parties. But, at this point, the civics model begins to wear thin. For whatever reason, more and more Americans are not answering the call to vote. This could be because of widespread apathy, or satisfaction, or it could be an indication that something far more serious is at work, such as "principled abstinence." People might not be voting for the candidates of either of the major parties "as a matter of principle." If they believe that candidates of both major parties fail to adequately defend their interests, one might expect such abstinence. Presumably, the most important underlying reason for this principled abstinence would be the perception that both of the major parties have become unrepresentative. In turn, unrepresentativeness appears logically connected to the increasing polarization of the political parties.
The civics model falls short at another point as well. Civic duty extends far beyond the simple act of voting. Therefore, voting alone is an incomplete indicator of the degree to which the civics model continues to be accurate. Civic duty involves acquiring enough information about the candidates and the issues to be able to make informed choices about both. There are ample reasons to believe that among those who continue to vote, very few are making truly informed choices. Many are simply casting their votes blindly, out of habit, and in the absence of strong commitments to either candidates or principles. Many continue to vote on the basis of party label as a proxy for firm beliefs about the issues. Most of those who continue to vote are not likely to be well informed about the issues or the candidates, because the cost of becoming well informed has become so great.
In a polarized political environment, the cost of political information tends to rise dramatically, as both sides devote increasing amounts of energy to rhetoric, at the expense of substance. In such an environment, it becomes increasingly difficult to extract the truth. The way that the issues are publicly debated becomes poisoned, as ideology begins to dominate debates, and as both sides do whatever it takes to sway public opinion.
Becoming informed about either the issues or the candidates has always entailed certain "opportunity costs." But, in this era of soundbites and token debates on the issues, the cost of gaining extensive, in depth understanding about either the candidates or the issues has increased to the point where it is just too high for most Americans to overcome. In this environment, even those Americans who continue to vote do so with the knowledge that neither party espouses views that they can agree with on many issues. Hence, many Americans continue to vote, even as they abdicate their deeper political responsibility to become informed. This pattern is even more likely to be true when the economy is good and when information costs are relatively high.
Even when individuals are willing and able to overcome the information costs necessary for meaningful participation in the political process, it is asking too much for most Americans to participate in the electoral process when they recognize that their choice of viable candidates is limited to representatives of "unrepresentative" parties. Similarly, it may be asking too much for most Americans to vote for candidates who do not strongly support views similar to their own. After all, why should you vote for a candidate who does not reflect your own opinions on the issues? As a result of this increasing distance between the viewpoints of the political elites and the viewpoints of the majority of Americans, many relatively well informed and civic minded people do not vote or otherwise participate in the political process.
To review the standard explanations for decreasing voter turnout offered by most political analysts; the declining rate of voter participation is either an indication that most Americans are basically satisfied with the way the country is being run, or it is an expression of indifference to the way the country is being run. A more extensive search for the causes of declining political participation might reveal that, under normal circumstances, people do not tend to draw connections between the more impersonal world of politics, and what happens in their own lives, until such connections are made painfully clear to them by events. Most people don't like to be reminded that they are at the mercy of larger, impersonal forces. Because politics represents such forces, most people turn inward to their personal lives, whenever the economy is sound, rather than outward towards the public life of their community. With few pressing causes to animate them, millions of Americans drop out of the political process altogether, in order to indulge themselves in domestic and commercial life.
To many Americans who are benefiting the most from current economic conditions, the motives of those who become politically active at such times become suspect. When the nation is at peace, and the economy is doing well, the urge to become politically active is more often exhibited by extremist and unrepresentative groups. By association, all of those who respond to the urge to participate in political life incur the stigma of extremism. In times of peace and prosperity, people who march, demonstrate, and otherwise preoccupy themselves with politics, are just not normal, representative people. By contrast, most Americans, including a majority of those who vote, continue to exercise a "healthy disinterest" in politics.
THE
CONSEQUENCES OF DECLINING PARTICIPATION
It is understandable that increasing
numbers of people choose to abstain from voting, as a matter of principle.
Non-participation is their right. But, in exercising this right, some unfortunate
things happen to to the major parties, and to American politics more generally.
As more and more people abstain from voting, either due to apathy or principle,
political power becomes concentrated in the hands of smaller and more unrepresentative
groups. Smaller and smaller groups of people begin to wield more and more
political power. As a result, more and more people come to regard the political
process as illegitimate. A democracy in which the representatives are only
elected by a small fraction of the eligible electorate can scarcely be
called legitimate, even if the majority have voluntarily chosen not to
participate in the political process. Nor can the political leaders selected
by such a small percentage of the eligible electorate truthfully claim
to have any sort of popular mandate for their policies. However, the growing
perception that the political process is illegitimate, and that the major
parties are unrepresentative, can have some fortunate side effects for
smaller parties. Specifically, It can open the door for a nascent political
party that is more representative. This is probably how the two party system
in the United States will ultimately end. People will simply give up on
the process. In this environment, the rate of voter participation will
fall far below its current level, which is already low. When perhaps only
as little as 25% of the electorate votes, the challenges for a well organized
third party which is growing in popularity will decrease significantly.
This will obviously be good for us, if we can be that party.
RESTORING
REPRESENTATIVENESS
Restoring representativeness to the
political process will not result from moving toward the middle of the
ideological continuum on all issues, any more than polarization of the
political process resulted from moving to the left on one issue, or to
the right on another issue. Polarization of the political process occurs
when there is a high degree of ideological similarity or cohesiveness among
the elites within a party, and a relatively high degree of ideological
distance between the political parties, as there is now. In the present
environment, this polarization has taken the form of a Republican party
which is more homogeneously conservative, at the elite level, and a democratic
party which has become more homogeneously liberal, at the elite level.
Restoring representativeness to the political process means getting back in tune with the sentiments and opinions of the vast majority of Americans. It does not require that a political party, or a candidate, move either to the left, to the right, or to the center, on all issues. It does require that a party, or a candidate, move in the "correct" direction on each issue, or in the direction which frequently coincides with the majoritarian view. Presumably, neither the political right nor the political left has a monopoly on the truth. Consequently, the best solutions for particular problems will fall at different points along the ideological spectrum. For an individual candidate or office holder, reaching optimal policy positions will entail being more liberal on some issues and more conservative on others. It will require adopting a synthetic approach to the policy determination process, not an ideological approach. It will require a thoughtful and mature understanding of the issues, within a complex, systemic framework. Conceptualizing problems within this framework may yield solutions that are decidedly to the left on certain issues, and decidedly to the right on other issues, as rational consideration of the evidence dictates, in light of particular national priorities. Finally, restoring representativeness will require that our representatives reach their policy making decisions pragmatically, rather than dutifully defending the pet ideological preferences of some of their more radical constituents. Only in this way will representatives be able to achieve the kind of ideological synthesis which closely approximates the attitudes held by the vast majority of Americans.
IDEOLOGY
AND THE ELECTORATE
Due to the effects of mass media alone,
most Americans are able to make relatively sophisticated connections between
many political issues and their personal lives. Correspondingly, they form
attitudes towards many of the issues with which issue group activists are
most concerned. Because these views are often more diffuse, less well developed,
and less intensely felt than the polarized views of issue group activists,
the majority of Americans are frequently less motivated to become issue
activists themselves. In addition, most Americans may not have the time
or financial resources necessary to make these issues their life's work.
But the quality of their concerns, or the intensity with which these concerns
are felt should not be underestimated, merely because these concerns fail
to manifest themselves in activist form. This is especially true in a political
environment in which the expression of majoritarian views are frequently
denied institutional support by the major parties.
Typically, the views which most Americans hold on most issues are more synthetic, and in many cases, more complex, than the polarized views held by issue group activists. The views of issue group activists tend to become polarized and unrepresentative for a number of reasons. The most overriding reason is a global affect, or a general feeling towards an issue which motivates someone to become an activist in the first place. It is commonly assumed that issue group activists spend more time becoming informed about a particular issue, and that, on the basis of the knowledge they acquire, they arrive at a particular position on that issue. Unfortunately, quite the opposite is often true. A majority of issue group activists would flunk a factual examination on the very issues they so energetically defend. Their defense of a particular issue is more commonly grounded in feelings rather than facts. In other words, they take up a particular cause because they initially had a strong feeling about it, not because they happened to know a lot about it. Thus, in terms of their overall levels of political sophistication, most issue group activists are not significantly more well informed than the vast majority of Americans, though they are significantly more ideological. However, there is typically a fairly well informed core of activists surrounding every issue. In comparison to this more select group of activists, the knowledge which most Americans bring to bear on important issues is admittedly more general and limited. At the same time, the knowledge that most Americans have about the issues also tends to be more even handed and less polarized, for several reasons.
In their singular quest to present the best defense for their views, issue group activists necessarily end up with one sided pictures of the total truth surrounding an issue. Often without even realizing it, they systematically distort a particular point of view in order to caste it in the most favorable light. Because most issue groups are engaged in struggles against competing groups, they have incentives to focus only on that information which tends to support their view, and to ignore conflicting information which may be equally valid. As many interest group activists see it, their principal task is to present the facts that are most useful for combating opposing arguments, and to focus on those aspects of the truth which offer the most support for their ideals. As idealists, they frequently fail to acknowledge other aspects of truth which may come into conflict with their ideals. These other aspects of truth are more easily visible to the majority of Americans who may not share these ideals with same degree of radical conviction as the activists. In short, the majority of Americans are better able to synthesize bodies of conflicting information, and are more likely to base their policy preferences on rational considerations, than on ideals. The larger synthesis of opposing viewpoints which the interest group activists deliberately fail to perform is thus left to others to perform. Unfortunately, in the legislative arena, this synthesis too often goes undone. Consequently, after the American people have had the opportunity to synthesize the information on both sides of an issue, they are frequently not given policy choices which reflect synthesis, due to the polarized political process. And here is the crux of one of our nation's most serious political problems, and a primary reason for the existence of the American Synthesis Party. Under the influence of ideological elites, neither of the major parties are very adept at reaching issue positions in a way that does not reference ideological principles first. Neither of the major parties seems able to master the art of synthesis, or combining elements of the left and the right to yield solutions to critical problems that are optimal in terms of national interest, but which may tend to violate strict ideological orthodoxy, or which may threaten to breakup coalitions which are organized largely along ideological lines.
While the vast majority of Americans hold more synthetic views than the issue group extremists which form the activist cores of the major parties, they nonetheless fail to defend their views with the same degree of intensity as these activists. And, to the extent that most Americans hold a combination of views associated with both the political left and the political right, the energy which they are willing to expend in the defense of any one of these views tends to fall far short of the energy which issue group activists are able to muster. Correspondingly, those with less extreme and strongly felt views tend to be less vocal and less politically active. If the majority remains silent on certain issues, its silence allows vocal and unrepresentative minorities to exaggerate their influence and to distort the democratic process. Because most Americans are not activists who are obsessed with a single political or social issue, their lack of zeal allows the extremists to wield a level of political power that is out of all proportion to their numbers. By default of their more reasonable and less impassioned defense of the issues, the vast majority of Americans have conceded the political playing field to the extremists.
One can only imagine what would happen if, in a spirit of righteous indignation, the majoritarian Leviathan suddenly turned on the Lilliputian special interests and reasserted its natural right to determine the public agenda. Certainly, in this situation, many groups of single issue activists would be forced out of work. Alternatively, other groups of issue activists would reap a decisive political windfall if the majority happened to weigh in on their side. But short of such a decisive move by the majority of Americans, unrepresentative extremists may be expected to continue to dominate the political playing field.
By default of their non-participation in the political process, the majority of Americans have conceded the political high ground to the most extreme and unrepresentative elements of our population. The more synthetic convictions which might motivate the vast majority of Americans to become more politically active, have had no institutional means of support within the ideologically polarized political parties. A third party which is based on the defense of these convictions has not been viable up to this point. Moreover, as the convictions of most Americans tend to cover a broader range of issues, they are rendered more diffuse, and are defended with less intensity than the more narrow and singular concerns of issue group activists. Despite such diffusion, there are still good reasons to believe that the vast majority of Americans continue to feel strongly about a number of issues, and that they recognize the links between these issues, the state of the nation, and their own life circumstances. Even more important than feeling strongly about a number of issues, the positions they take on the issues are often arrived at through a process of quiet reflection which has taken place over a long period of time. The result is that the vast majority of Americans feel strongly about an extensive constellation of related political issues which have been arrived at through reason, rather than sentiment. This constellation of beliefs comprises a distinctly synthetic political ideology
Unfortunately, most political scholars do not accept "feeling strongly about a constellation of related issues" as an indication that one has an ideology, if the resulting ideas do not line up neatly on one side of the ideological spectrum or the other. That is, if these ideas are a complex and synthetic mix of basically liberal and conservative ideas, such ideas tend to defy the system of classification that most political scholars continue to use to assign people to ideological categories. As far as most political scholars are concerned, if one holds a political ideology, it generally means that one must be classified as either a liberal or a conservative. Consequently, scholars have difficulty classifying people who hold more complex, synthetic views than the standard categories of classification allow for. To the scholars who relentlessly apply this outmoded system of classification, the people who hold such ideas must simply be confused in their views.
Scholars have good reasons for not wanting to classify people as "synthesists." For over the years, many academic careers have been built on usage of the older dichotomous system of classification. A system of ideological classification which would make allowances for synthesists would tend to destroy the pristine conceptual simplicity of the polar model, and it would threaten to invalidate much of the existing literature on the subject. Consequently, most scholars continue to prefer a system of classification based upon liberal and conservative labels. For clearly, being able to assign people to one category or the other makes the scholars' job of classification much easier. Moreover, this system of classification tends to validate the research methods they employ, the tools they use, and the results they get. It also tends to reinforce the existing literature on the subject. The fact that the ideas about the issues held by the vast majority of Americans don't generally conform to this neat system of classification; or the fact that most Americans don't neatly stack up on one side of the political spectrum of the other, is often conveniently attributed to incoherence on their part. All too frequently, the scholars just dismiss the absence of conformity with their model as an indication that most Americans don't care very much about the issues and that, consequently, most Americans don't have well developed opinions on the issues. While the informal beliefs systems held by the majority of Americans may not be organized along lines of the more abstract ideological principles, they still contain all the necessary features of ideologies, or political belief systems. These belief systems serve as guides for political action, or even political inaction. The similarities in these belief systems constitute a synthetic ideology shared by the majority of Americans.
Assuming that most Americans hold what amounts to a political ideology, but that this ideology is not primarily organized around liberal or conservative principles, what might be the major force, or the primary organizing principle behind the formation of such an ideology? In the absence of polar ideological constraints, it seems that most Americans arrive at their political views by referencing what they believe to be their self interest. Self interest is the primary organizing principle behind the synthetic ideological beliefs held by most Americans. The fact that most Americans don't have a firm grasp of the formal content of liberal and conservative ideologies is actually an advantage where forming synthetic views is concerned. For without the formal principles of the polar ideologies to bind them, the majority of Americans are more free to embrace ideas which have their origins on either the political right or the political left, than are the more educated and ideologically constrained political elites. As a result, many Americans end up holding views which may contain some elements more closely associated with the left and other elements more closely associated with the right.
To the person who continues to look at the world through the conventional ideological lenses, such a mix of liberal and conservative elements is internally inconsistent and does not constitute a coherent belief system. However, such views are not inconsistent insofar as they are organized around the principle of self interest. That is to say, if I hold a combination of liberal and conservative views primarily because I believe these views are in my self interest, or in the national interest, then such views are completely consistent within my own conceptual framework. These views are only inconsistent to the outside observer who demands that I conform to his or her ideas of ideological orthodoxy. To the extent that most Americans have ideas about political issues, they tend to arrive at these ideas by referencing what they believe to be their self interest first, not by referencing some abstract ideological principles which they typically don't know much about to begin with. In short, they take a particular stand on an issue because they believe it will be good for the nation and or good for them personally.
Assuming that a majority of Americans do have moderately strong and well developed views on a variety of issues with which interest groups are concerned; and assuming that these views are not monolithically liberal or conservative, but tend to cut across ideological lines; then one reason for their massive non-participation in the political process must be the fact that a political party has not existed which clearly articulates their views in the form of a party platform or a party doctrine. In an environment where both of the major parties are dominated by polarized elites, no political party has existed, until this point, which could serve as a vehicle for promoting such an eclectic mixture, or "synthesis" of ideas. Without such a party, many majoritarian views do not have the institutional support that is necessary to become public policy.
Given that the vast majority of Americans continue to have a variety of serious political concerns about which they feel more or less strongly, what might a representative cross-section of their views look like? What is known about the general political views and other characteristics by which the majority of Americans tend to define themselves? What collection of statements about leading issues would the majority of Americans tend to agree with? What core beliefs do they share?
The following statements represent some of the more politically salient characteristics shared by the vast majority of Americans. As such, these statements contain synthetic beliefs which, in combination, makeup a distinctly American psyche. The statements include both general characteristics and important political points at which the vast majority tend to be in agreement. The statements will serve to give the reader some sense of the a priori basis for the more formal expression of Synthesis Party doctrine which is to follow. The statements are not arranged in any particular order, and are merely an illustration of what might be called "majoritarian parameters." These parameters include the beliefs that:
1)The vast majority of Americans have some libertarian leanings where freedom of the internet is concerned. Thou shall not tax the internet.
2)The vast majority of Americans would be willing to incur the greater political information costs required to learn more about the candidates and the issues if they had the "convenience" option of voting in general elections by way of secure internet websites.
3)The vast majority of Americans would prefer a candidate selection process based on competitive examinations, rather than on internal party politics. The exams might resemble graduate level exams in political science and economics.
4)The vast majority of Americans would concede to some system of progressive taxation, however reluctantly, if the particular rate at which they were taxed were reduced from its current rate.
5)On the gun control issue, the vast majority of Americans know that guns should not be made into a scapegoat for the problems of crime and violence which have their main origins in cases of parental irresponsibility and the popular culture.
6)The vast majority of Americans reject the political correctness movement and other attempts to practice social engineering, which have emanated from the more radical quarters of academia in recent decades; and in which the press, advertising, and entertainment industries have been willing accomplices.
7)The vast majority of Americans resent, and are able to see through, attempts by cadres of professional journalists and social scientists to mold public attitudes in a way that "they" believe is in the public interest.
8)The vast majority of American males do not wear earrings in either ear and have no desire to begin the practice.
9)The vast majority of Americans are heterosexuals.
10)The vast majority of Americans are not fundamentalist Christians.
11)The vast majority of Americans continue to marry within their own race. Correspondingly, most Americans reject attempts by Hollywood and Madison Avenue to increase the acceptability of conjugal relations across racial lines, as an exercise in social engineering.
12)The vast majority of Americans do not favor the practice of abortion on demand, though most would not make it illegal in all cases.
13)The vast majority of Americans are not decidedly liberal or conservative on all issues, but hold views which tend to cut across ideological lines; liberal on some issues, conservative on other issues, and centrist on yet other issues.
14)In many respects, the vast majority of Americans tend to be more thoughtful and reflective than their political leaders. For their ideas about the correct solutions to important social problems are not restricted by the ideologies which restrict the views commonly held by Republican and Democratic party elites.
15)The vast majority of Americans see themselves in opposition to "opinion leaders" in the legal profession, academia, the press, and the entertainment industry. This represents a potentially explosive disconnect between the populace and it leaders.
16)The vast majority of Americans tend to be politically inactive, not because they are extremely content with the direction in which the country is headed, and not because they don't care; but because they don't accept the choices that the major parties give them, either in the way of candidates or issue positions.
The A.S.P. is a party for the vast majority of Americans. The party adopts issue positions which do not currently enjoy strong support within the polarized major parties, but which commonly coincide with prevailing majoritarian sentiments and opinions.
THE PARTY
DOCTRINE
In terms of liberal and conservative
ideologies, the party doctrine contains a unique combination, or synthesis
of elements normally associated with both the political left and the political
right. As such, it is a "synthetic" doctrine. Hence the term "American
Synthesis Party." The complete party doctrine will be published in this
and related sites. These sites will cover a broad range of topics including:
social engineering, economic engineering, political engineering, natural
law and ethics, synthetic humanism, ideology, a social science critique,
and miscellaneous sites covering topics ranging from education, religion,
marriage and the family, to population control, the environment, and space
exploration policy. Demonstration of proficiency in each of these areas
will be required for anyone who seeks higher posts in the ASP.
Summaries of each site will be made available to members who are preparing for examinations, as a requirement for appointment to certain positions in the party. Each of these summaries will contain a section designated "Essentials of Doctrine (ESDs)." Party members and prospective members should familiarize themselves with these ESDs. ESD1 contains the most broad and comprehensive statement of party doctrine and can be found in the next section of this site. To fully understand the entire party doctrine will require a substantial investment of time and effort. A background in law, business, or one of the social sciences would be helpful for this purpose, but is not a requirement.
The following discussion illustrates how the party's synthetic doctrine pertaining to the environment, immigration policy and population control was derived. It represents one of the party's more important doctrines.
The Environment, Immigration, and
Population Control Nexus
The call to address environmental problems,
chiefly by containing world population growth, is a cornerstone of Synthesis
Party doctrine. This doctrine provides a clear example of a policy which
contains elements normally associated with either the political left, or
the political right, but which can be melded to form an internally consistent
synthesis. For instance, while calls to protect the environment emanate
from many quarters, they are more closely associated with the political
left. Conversely, calls for placing drastic limits on immigration are more
closely associated with the political right. A policy which embraces the
need for immigration control merely as an expedient to deal with the closely
linked problems of overpopulation and environmental protection is thus
"synthetic." It contains elements normally associated with both the political
left and the political right. And yet, this doctrine is internally consistent
and non-contradictory. Such synthetic policies do not appeal to either
liberal or conservative principles for their legitimation. Consequently,
they do not tend to appeal to those who identify themselves as either liberals
or conservatives.
Most Americans believe it is in their self interest, and in the national interest, to impose strict limits on immigration, to preserve their own quality of life and to protect the environment as well. Undoubtedly, many Americans would willingly accept drastic limits on immigration, merely as expedients to contain population growth and to protect the environment. Yet, to observers who see the world through ideological lenses (as most scholars and political elites tend to), there is a fundamental inconsistency between supporting a strong immigration policy on the one hand and supporting strong environmental protection measures on the other. For example, most liberals support non-restrictive immigration policies and favor strong environmental protection policies. Conversely, most conservatives support more restrictive immigration policies and more lax environmental policies. But in terms of self interest, or in terms of what would be best for most Americans individually, and ultimately, best for the nation, the policies of strict immigration control and strong environmental protection are completely consistent with one another. The two policies are only seen as being in conflict if they are viewed within an intellectual framework that references ideological principles first, rather than referencing legitimate concerns for self interest.
In the case of population control, consider the following more extensive argument: Your right to engage in any kind of private behavior you like (including having children) ends where everyone else's right to be free from the adverse consequences of your behavior begins. For example, lets say that five families live on a dessert island. The island has enough natural resources to adequately sustain a maximum of 27 people, or about 5 people per family. For purposes of this example, I am a member of this castaway community. If I exercise the "right" to have as many children as I want, in this environment of limited resources, my actions will tend to reduce the standard of living for everyone else on the island. Consequently, everyone else on the island (the community) has a right to curb any practice I might engage in which could bring it harm, including my decision to have children. Under conditions of scarcity, the community has a right to set a limit on the number of children I may have. To encourage compliance with the "childbirth quota," the community has the further right to devise a system of incentives and penalties.
Now further suppose that one of the couples on the island has freely chosen not to have any children at all. Whereas, I would like to have more children than I am allowed under the quota. The couple which has elected to remain childless should have a right to sell their unused childbirth quota to me. The community should have no objection to this, as it would not cause the community harm, and in no way represents an attempt to circumvent the public purpose of the quota. If, at a later point in their lives, the couple that has sold its childbirth quota to me should decide to have children, they can attempt to purchase a childbirth quota on the open market. Admittedly, the market will be very limited and quotas will likely be very expensive on an island which can adequately sustain only 27 people. But this case illustrates my point. And, the case is no different whether one is dealing with an island, or with the world. Both have finite resources which can be brought under pressure from overpopulation. Both represent conditions of scarcity.
Under the proper popular and governmental auspices (the people democratically determine what quota is acceptable, and the government institutes a plan of incentives and penalties to insure that the quota is not exceeded), a free market mechanism could be used to determine how many children people will have. If those least able to afford children didn't have so many children, the need for population control would not be a problem. A state sanctioned population control program would only be needed because certain market failures tend to result in overpopulation in the first place. Different market failures are typically at work in the developed and the underdeveloped nations.
If the free markets were truly operating, human passions aside, potential mothers who do not have the financial resources to adequately provide for children would not have them. In developed countries at least, state subsidies artificially discount the cost of having children, by passing on a portion of this cost to society at large. It's as if some important state purpose were being served by having children. In fact, an important state purpose is being served; namely, the creation of its future citizens. But this important state purpose must be weighed against other important considerations. Ultimately, the state's policy should be directed towards giving people sufficient incentives to have as many children as are needed to maintain the state's viability, but not so many as to generate overpopulation.
Some would argue that the market already determines how many children people are likely to have. But this is far from the case. In fact, those who have the least economic resources and who are least able to educate and provide for their children typically have the most children. The fact that fertility rates and family size tend to increase as socio-economic status decreases is known as differential fertility. This phenomenon tends to hold true in the Unites States, and to a much greater degree, in underdeveloped nations throughout the world. But, in the Unites States and many other developed nations, differential fertility is exacerbated by state subsidies (including tax breaks) to poor families with children. Once the mistake of having children has been made, the state extends a compassionate hand to help its less advantaged citizens. This may be an adequate band-aid measure for improving the plight of those who live in poverty, but it only makes the problem of overpopulation worse. Through such measures, the state, in effect, subsidizes individual irresponsibility. In those nations with more highly developed social welfare systems, people who cannot really afford to have children have them anyway, because they know the state will share the expense of these children. Thus, the consequences that follow from having children are not severe enough to discourage conception.
In the underdeveloped nations, people who cannot afford to adequately provide for their children also continue to have have large families. This happens for a variety of reasons, ranging from cultural norms, to inability to control natural urges. But more often, having large numbers of children in underdeveloped nations is the result of a deliberate strategy of individuals to bear their future caregivers and providers. Lacking a highly developed social welfare infrastructure which is more typical of the developed nations, people in the third world nations feel that they have little choice but to have many children, in hopes that at least some of them will survive to help provide for them in their old age. For many who live in societies without an adequate social welfare infrastructure, this is the best means of insuring survival in old age. Everyone would appear to be better off for pursuing this strategy, until such time as overpopulation threatens everyone's environment and food supply. In fact, everyone is ultimately worse off from pursuing this strategy. But, in the absence of a social welfare infrastructure to care for people in their old age, few people have incentives to stop having large numbers of children.
In the absence of a highly developed state funded social welfare system, people have incentive to have as many children as possible, in hopes that a few of them might survive to care for them in their old age. People only engage in this strategy for the chance of becoming one of those few who will actually be better off for having pursued it, over the short term. The fact that the pursuit of this strategy will mean that competition for food and other scarce resources will intensify to an unprecedented level, is not an immediate consideration. The threat of such consequences far into the future will not prevent people from trying maximize their chances of survival over the short term. Hence, state measures to limit family size are necessary.
The unpleasant necessity of population control seems to have escaped many Western journalists, especially members of the American press. There have been a number of recent instances in which members of the American press have condemned mainland China for its population control measures. A deeper appreciation of global fundamentals reveals that China's attempt to regulate its population growth deserves praise rather than condemnation. China could have never reached its current level of development in such a short time, without such measures. These measures have enabled the Chinese to increase their standards of living when, without such measures, their standard of living would have tended to fall.
The practice of defending environmental causes, but condemning population control measures, is contradictory. On the one hand, members of the Western press have taken up the cause of environmental protection, to their credit. But on the other hand, the press too often fails to make the connection between unchecked population growth and environmental degradation. This failure marks a more general tendency which members of the press have yet to come to grips with. Specifically, the press has an overriding professional interest in promoting personal freedoms of all kinds, in order to better insure its own professional freedoms. The press is substantially less concerned with the adverse consequences which tend to follow from the exercise of these freedoms. Where population control is concerned, the press has yet to acknowledge that there is some point at which it becomes necessary to curb individual behavior in order to achieve a collective result. In other words, the press has failed to focus on the tradeoffs which certain individual freedoms involve. It has failed as well to make clear to the public that there is a hierarchy of freedoms which applies to the population control issue. Specifically, when individuals exercise their freedom to have as many children as they want, then, at some point, they will have to give up their freedom to enjoy a high standard of living. At many places in the third world, and even in many developed countries like the United States, standards of living will fall, if population continues to increase. When one is faced with a choice between the freedom to have as many children as one wants, versus the freedom from material deprivation, freedom from material deprivation should prevail. Hierarchically, freedom from deprivation is the greater freedom. Up to this point, the public has remained convinced that it can continue to enjoy both freedoms indefinitely, and that the exercise of one freedom does not involve a tradeoff where the other freedom is concerned. The press has done little to dispel this notion.
The argument can be made that, because productivity has been increasing, that we do not yet have to make the difficult choice between the freedom of having an unlimited number of children on the one hand, and the freedom of enjoying a high standard of living on the other. One could easily argue that due to continual advances in technology and productivity, and in spite of finite resources, not only can we adequately sustain everyone now on the planet, but we could provide for many more besides. In fact, technology has allowed us to make much better use of our finite resources than ever before. Thus, the number of people that the world can adequately provide for has steadily increased with the advance of technology. But, at some point we should recognize that maintaining or improving our quality of life requires far more than just being able to "adequately provide for" as many people as our technology can produce food for. Just as the "quality of life" is a complex concept with many dimensions, so too are there many measures of "standard of living." The capacity to provide adequate sustenance is only one measure. One must also measure the externalities caused by the production process itself. In other words, one must measure the amount of environmental damage and resource depletion that one must sacrifice for a unit of productivity increase. Productivity increases (making more output with less input) will undoubtedly continue to increase with further technological advances. And even pollution and other externalities may be brought under control to some extent. But because the standard of living is a more complex concept than simply "producing mass quantities of products for human consumption," other factors must be given consideration. There is a point at which a population ceiling becomes necessary to preserve important aspects of our standard of living. There are convincing reasons for believing that this point has been reached or exceeded.
The amount of natural environment which is left for recreational use is an important element of standard of living. Given that the natural environment available for recreational use tends to decline, as population increases, the quality of life tends to decrease as population increases. Correspondingly, loss of natural surroundings for the sake of greater material production can become a zero sum proposition where the standard of living is concerned. Some equilibrium between consumption and environmental preservation must be achieved for standard of living and quality of life to be maximized. Ultimately, this equilibrium can only be achieved by establishing a population ceiling, or by adopting a population control program. Again, there are ample reasons to believe that we have not only reached the point of this equilibrium, but have far exceeded it. Yet, there is little public dialogue on the subject.
In general, the business community is noticeably quiet on the issue of population control. Business leaders have not been inclined to step up to the plate on the issue. On the one hand, the more sophisticated business leaders are clearly able to recognize the threats to the environment and to the quality of life posed by overpopulation. On the other hand, many of them hold tenaciously to the idea that growing populations lead to expanding markets for their products. Hence, the business community is reluctant to endorse such measures because, in its view, larger populations mean larger consumer markets and more business. However, this need not be the case. In an environment of increasing productivity, markets can continue to expand, and economic growth can continue, even when population growth is static or in decline. This phenomenon has been observed in a number of countries in Western Europe.
Another reason there is so little public dialogue on the issue of overpopulation in the United States is that there tends to be so little agreement on exactly what constitutes overpopulation. In an environment where steady increases in the material aspects of the standard of living are being made possible by increases in productivity, we are apparently not so hard pressed for resources. Consequently, some would argue, there is no need to sell the public on the idea of population control. But because quality of life and standard of living contain many dimensions that make life more livable and more enjoyable; and because these dimensions may be brought under threat by increases in population density, the need for population control should be apparent. Admittedly, the exact point at which population density begins to reduce living standards to an unacceptable level cannot be determined with mathematical precision. Hence, the question arises, if a population ceiling were established, what would it be? Many who promote continued population growth in this country point to the fact that many other nations have considerably higher levels of population density than our own and that we are well able to accommodate more people in the United States. This is true. But again, there is more to the quality of life than mere "accommodations." In virtually every instance, higher population densities of other countries are associated with lower standards of living. The two are inextricably linked. The standard of living includes such elements as "having vast tracts of undeveloped wilderness available for recreational use." To insure that such lands remain available for future use in the United States, it would be prudent to put a cap on our population at or near its current level, or around the 300 million mark. A policy of strict immigration control will become necessary simply to remain within the population ceiling.
One principal reason for the low level dialogue on the subject of population control is that most political leaders assume that the general public cannot make the connection between population increases and standard of living decreases. Political leaders also tend to believe that even if the public can make the connection, it will nonetheless remain unwilling to take the steps necessary to solve these problems, if it means some loss of personal freedom. And yet, population control is the only way we are going to forestall eventual environmental collapse, both domestically and internationally. The Synthesis Party policy on population control is designed to raise awareness of this problem. It suggests that a serious national dialogue to raise public awareness of the need for population control measures is now necessary, in order to pave the way for eventual acceptance of theses measures. Once the alternatives have been made clear to them, the vast majority of Americans would likely support both a drastic reduction of immigration, and a population control program. Once a public consensus on these issues has been reached, it will be easier to provide these measures with the institutional support they need to become law.
The freedom to exercise individual rights means little or nothing if the exercise of these rights creates an environment that is unsustainable and unlivable. Population control entails giving up certain individual rights in order to enjoy other more important rights. Yet, a program of population and immigration control should not be foisted on the American people by some elite. Rather, the problems that arise from overpopulation should be made so apparent to the average American that the failure to pass laws to control immigration and population growth becomes more politically dangerous than the passage of such laws. Once a suitable environment for these laws has been created, strong institutional support for population control measures should naturally follow. And, it makes little sense to adopt a policy of population control domestically if this principle is not being promoted internationally. To encourage the adoption of population control measures internationally, both trade and foreign aid become legitimate tools.
The foregoing discussion of the related issues of immigration, population control, and environmental protection is just one example of a synthetic doctrine. A more concise recap of this doctrine, along with the other important elements of Synthesis Party doctrine, may be found in the following section.
THE
PARTY PLATFORM (ESD1)
As stated, the party doctrine will
be published via this and related sites. Taken together, these sites will
constitute a comprehensive social, economic, political, legal, and even
theological, philosophy. The following policy statements cover a broad
range of topics and are intended to serve as the interim party platform.
Social Welfare
Because the nation is not currently
enjoying strong economic conditions, there is a need for a sound social
welfare policy to provide material support for those thrown out of work
by an economic slowdown. At the same time, there is a need to provide the
private sector with jobs creating capital. In other words, we must have
a social welfare policy in place which does not threaten to bankrupt the
private sector with oppressive taxation on the one hand, and which does
not threaten the unemployed with starvation on the other. The cornerstone
of such a policy should include work requirements for those receiving public
benefits, in return for adequate benefits (i.e. a living wage). If necessary,
create a civilian public works corps, provided it does meaningful work
for which there is a large measure of public support.
Defense
Increase defense spending in response
to growing geopolitical uncertainties which have materialized since 9/11/01.
Largely because of global population increases and resulting pressures
on available resources, long term geopolitical stability is still very
much in doubt. The need for vigilance and a strong defense remains high.
Space Exploration
A policy of moderately ambitious funding
for space exploration is supported, to pave the way for the eventual practical
utilization of extraterrestrial resources, and to help maintain the industrial
infrastructure for economic and defense purposes.
Taxation
IMPORTANT
REVISION: THE PARTY NOW SUPPORTS THE "FAIRTAX." FOR A COMPLETE EXPLANATION
OF THIS TAX PROPOSAL, SEE THE BOOK: FAIRTAX, BY NEAL BOORTZ AND CONGRESSMAN
JOHN LINDER.
(ORIGINAL POLICY: A moderately progressive income tax structure, not too much different from the one we have now, is probably more equitable than the leading alternatives which have been recently proposed by representatives of the major parties. The idea of a simple flat tax, or even a national sales tax, may be appealing, but tend to ignore social welfare concerns which are addressed by a system of moderately progressive taxation. However, some modifications should be made to inheritance taxes to reduce inequalities. The wealthy should not be penalized for their wealth. Current inheritance taxes are clearly punitive.)
Trade
Primarily as a result of foreign competition,
American industry has declined significantly. However, at this late stage,
most of the workers who have been displaced from industrial jobs have been
largely assimilated into either the information or the service economy.
Nonetheless, some method of levelling the playing field between our workers
and cheap foreign labor is needed. Wage equalization duties are one possibility.
Population Control
Our quality of life and the quality
of our environment are intimately linked to our numbers. The earth has
a definite "carrying capacity" and there is every reason to believe that
this capacity has been reached or exceeded. In the United States, we can
probably accommodate no more than about 25 million additional people without
imposing unacceptable costs on ourselves and future generations. These
costs can be measured in terms of quality of life and environmental degradation.
Establish an absolute population ceiling of 300 million. Encourage sound
domestic population policy through a system of tax incentives designed
to favor small families (under 4 children per family). Encourage a responsible
population policy globally by linking it to foreign aid.
Environmental Protection
There is good environmental policy
and there is radical-emotional based policy. Two of the best non-radical
measures of protecting the environment are population control and recycling.
Environmental causes have often been denied mainstream acceptability because
they are so often championed by the idealistic and the uninformed. Nonetheless,
an environmental policy slightly left of center is advocated, principally
to afford endangered species greater protection.
Nuclear Power
A well regulated and closely monitored
nuclear power industry poses fewer environmental hazards than practical
alternative sources of energy. Opponents of nuclear power tend to be high
on sentiment and low on information. They are in the same category as emotive
environmental activists. However, the alarmist fears surrounding nuclear
power which these activists helped create has had the positive effect of
forcing the nuclear power industry to adopt relatively high standards.
As a result, we have a relatively safe nuclear power industry in the United
States today. From this point, our nuclear power policy should focus on
centralizing the industry, adopting a standard reactor design, and generating
30% of our energy by the year 2020.
Education
An aggressive overhaul of the educational
infrastructure is needed. Curricula should be standardized and national
standards should be adopted. Maintain liberal educational spending, but
with important qualifiers. Insure that fully two thirds of the high school
population will go to four year institutions. Rationalize and streamline
the educational process for a variety of degree programs, particularly
those in the social sciences, which are currently fraught with inefficiencies.
English as the Official Language
It is the prerogative of the majority
group in any nation who already share a common language, to establish that
language as the ONLY official language, in order to facilitate communication,
commerce, education, the efficiency of government, and in order to enhance
national identity and solidarity.
Immigration
Our traditionally liberal immigration
policies must be reconsidered in light of developments around the world.
We may expect a continuing deterioration of economic conditions in various
parts of the world before stabilization of population occurs. More people
will continue to seek refuge from the unfortunate economic conditions which
exist in their countries, often under the guise of seeking political asylum.
In many cases, we have no sure method for distinguishing legitimate cases
for asylum. Also, immigration must be considered in the context of our
own quality of life which is itself under increasing threat from factors
related to overpopulation. The process of incremental "door closing" should
begin now, starting with English proficiency requirements as a condition
for immigration.
Multiculturalism
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
The superordinate culture present in any nation has the natural right to
primacy within its national boundaries. The concept of multiculturalism
is rejected "intra" nationally. The concept of multiculturalism is supported
"internationally." That is to say, maintaining distinctive cultural differences
between nation states, rather than within them, is wholly desirable.
Drug Policy
Some relaxation of enforcement and
penalties associated with the use of marijuana and cannabis derivatives
like hashish. Due mainly to limited resources available for law enforcement,
shift priorities for enforcement and prosecution to hard drugs. Maintain
a hard line on hard drugs.
Crime and Punishment
Under a system which provides adequate
social welfare measures (such as that which is advocated), the culpability
of the criminal increases, as does the legitimacy of harsh penalties. Capital
punishment is consistent with a policy of harsh penalties, regardless of
its assumed deterrent value.
Religion
A commitment to religion is recommended.
Religion is seen as a functional necessity for individual moral development
and for strengthening the bonds of community. However, support for the
religious orientation associated with the far right is not encouraged.
Religious fundamentalism, while it appeals primarily to certain individuals
in the lower educational and economic strata, ultimately does disservice
to these individuals in their attempts to cope with life. A rational, non-literalist
understanding of the Bible and other religious works (which most educated
people tacitly accept) is encouraged. Religious beliefs in general are
best conceived in the context of moral philosophy.
Abortion
Life as "human potential" begins at
conception. Discourage abortion through a system of penalties and incentives.
Legalize abortion in the cases of rape, incest, endangerment to the mother,
and detection of fetal abnormality. Keep abortion legal for women age 18
or younger on grounds of higher risk pregnancies (endangerment to the mother)
characteristic of this group. Strict prohibition of abortion in all other
cases.
Prayer in School
A moment of silence is tantamount to
silence on the issue. It neither grants permission to pray, nor does it
take it away. This is the proper stand.
JOIN
TODAY
If you are an average American, and
if you want to defend your interests, you need to join the ASP. The Republicans
and Democrats WILL NOT DEFEND THE INTERESTS
OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN. These parties
have been bought and paid for by special interests. To join the ASP, or
to make a contribution, press the donate button below. A minimum
donation of $10 is required for a two year membership in the ASP.
START
A LOCAL CHAPTER
To start a local chapter, you will
need to be a Class A member. Even if no party has been established in your
community, you can begin to informally meet with other party members in
your area, to begin building the foundations for a party organization.
Who emerges as your local party chairman will depend mainly on your competition,
your own knowledge of the party doctrine, and your own communications skills.
The first person to become proficient in the party doctrine, and the first to pass their level three exams, will generally emerge as the party leader in their area. If one or more people apply for level three exams at or near the same time, the position of local party chairman will generally be awarded to the person who has the highest test scores; although other factors may be considered in making this determination, such as one's seniority, and how active one has been in assembling the local party organization.
If there is currently no Synthesis Party in your community, you can still convene informal meetings with other Synthesists in your area, either just to socialize with others who have similar views and interests, or to discuss the finer points of the party doctrine, and to begin to judge other members for their leadership potential. You can also begin to informally recruit members at this stage. For instance, lets say that you and a group of friends have decided to join the party, or to form a local chapter. You all find that you agree with the Xenophyte Code, which is at the core of the party philosophy, and you have taken the Class A membership oath. You all want to know what you can do to better serve the party, and to advance within the party. From this point you will need to begin studying the finer details of the party philosophy to enable you to pass a series of exams. The next thing that you must do is actually arrange to be tested. On the basis of your test scores, you will be assigned an eligibility rank for various positions within the party. By constantly improving your knowledge of the party philosophy, and by constantly improving your test scores, you will be positioning yourself to advance within the party, as your local membership base begins to grow. At this stage, you will have "informally" established a local party chapter, even if it is only composed of you and a few of your friends. However, once your local membership has reached around 20 or more members ( a number that could actually be significant in a local election in a small community), then you will need to take the next step, which is to apply for provisional "Sector" status. Basically, the sector is the organizational unit in the party which corresponds to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) in which you live.
Ideally, in addition to meeting the above requirements, you will have some at least a four year degree in one of the social or behavioral sciences, but this is not required. What is required is that, at a particular point in time, you are the one person in your area who exhibits the most interest and ability to lead the party in your area. And just because you are best qualified to lead the party in your area at a particular point in time does not guarantee that you will be able to retain your position. As the party becomes more popular in your area, you may have to face competition from other members. It is only by virtue of your determination, competence and integrity that you will be able to retain your position at the local level, or even advance beyond the local level. The principle of merit, not internal party politics, is what will determine your success in the party as much as anything else.
After you have passed your qualifying exams, and once your local membership has reached a certain point, and even before you become entitled to full pay as a "Sector Chief" you will become eligible for a smaller salary in recognition of your efforts. This salary will be commensurate with your qualifications, the size of your local membership, and the amount of contributions to the party that come from members in your area. For instance, if you have a local membership of 200 members, and you are able to collect annual dues in the amount of $4000 (all dues and contributions must be made payable to the ASP), depending on the party's budget, you can expect to receive a substantial portion of the funds which you helped to raise.
What other skills or resources will I need
to start a local party?
Most importantly, you will need a basic
understanding of the English language. At this stage, the party does not
have the resources that will be needed to translate the party doctrine
into other languages. Until it does have these resources, all documents,
communications and business between Synthesis parties and their affiliates
must be conducted in the English language, and all tests and examinations
will be administered in the English language.
In terms of financial or physical resources, most importantly, you will need a place for local members to meet. Initially, and as long as your local membership remains small, you can use your own residence if you choose. However, do not expect the party to reimburse you for any use you make of your personal resources, including your residence, for conducting party business. Alternatively, if you do not wish to use your home as an informal gathering place for party members, in some parts of the US (and in some other countries as well), it is possible to use public facilities (such as a school auditorium or classroom, during after hours, or on weekends) for political purposes. Consult local officials to determine if this is possible in your community. But, as long as your membership remains small (under 20 people), your personal residence is the logical choice for a meeting place. Besides, its not like you will be inviting complete strangers into your home. For, at least initially, only more highly educated, intelligent and presumably, people of good character, will be interested in joining your local chapter anyway. The principal tool that you will have to recruit and retain members are your own communication skills and your own powers of persuasion. Beyond these basic resources, not much else is required, unless of course you want to serve food or refreshments at your meetings.
To help you with either giving lectures to larger groups (greater than 20) or informal talks to smaller groups (less than 20), formal lesson plans will be made available to you upon request at no charge. Otherwise, if you are an accomplished public speaker, you can just shoot from the hip. However, in either case, you will be expected to have a commanding knowledge of the party doctrine. For the studious and dedicated member, this can be gained in as little as 6 weeks. However, it is strongly recommended that you devote a considerably greater period of time to develop a complete appreciation of the party doctrine.
If you aspire to the highest leadership positions in the party, you will need to have a commanding knowledge of both the primary and the secondary doctrines. The primary doctrine is the party doctrine per se. The secondary doctrine is that voluminous body of material from which the primary doctrine has been derived.
Training Seminars
Depending on the public's response
and demand for them, the party may sponsor training seminars, mainly for
the benefit of prospective Sector Chiefs. These seminars will expose Sector
Chief candidates to the formal requirements of the Sector Chief (the highest
salaried position at the local level). It will also allow prospective Sector
Chiefs to share their experiences and knowledge with each other. Lesson
plans for lectures will also be made available at these seminars.
Record Keeping
Accurate record keeping of membership
is your responsibility, whether your party has been chartered or not. Even
at the stage where your local chapter is little more than an informal gathering,
you should begin to keep records to establish the routines that you will
need to follow when your group has been formally recognized as a local
chapter of the ASP.
General Conduct
You only serve in an official capacity
as a party representative for as long as you are a party member in good
standing. If anything happens to tarnish your good name, whether it is
justified or not, you can be removed from your position, or asked to resign.
Your office may not be an elective position, but it carries many of the
same obligations as elective office. As a de facto public official who
represents the party, you will be expected to conform to the highest standards
of ethical conduct. Any financial or other malfeasance will elicit severe
penalties, and, punishment may extend beyond what is prescribed by the
laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense was deemed to occur.
A few decades ago, when the government of Italy was plagued with a high level of corruption, much as our government is today (the failure to defend principles that would best serve the public interest over the longer term can be thought of as a form of corruption), the people of Italy did something very unexpected. Out of sheer frustration with the corrupt political process, they swept communists into power in large numbers. They didn't elect communists because they agreed with their ideology, but because they knew that communists were so fanatically devoted to their principles, that they were much less likely to be corrupted. We want to build a similar reputation for our party. That is, we want the public to recognize that we place our principles, and our vision of the public interest, ahead of winning elections. And, if our devotion to our principles leads to public to see us as revolutionaries of a sort, then, at some point, this is likely to become more of an asset than a liability. For, at some point, the conventional wisdom that is helping to shore up the two party system is going to break down. In the aftermath of its collapse, being a revolutionary could easily become a requirement for winning public office. And, because it is our party's mission to bring about sweeping changes to our government, it is also appropriate that we should begin to see ourselves as revolutionaries.
Revolutions become necessary mainly when human civilizations depart substantially from principles of natural law. Historically, our understanding of natural law has been very limited, and its has been based mainly on what individuals were able to deduce about human nature from personal observations and experience. While personal observations and experience have some reliability, and can go some distance towards informing our understanding of human nature, they are not completely adequate for this purpose. As a result of advances that have been made in the behavioral sciences over recent decades, we now have a much better understanding of human nature, in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions. This more complete understanding of human nature is pointing us in the direction of new principles of natural law, which are the most basic principles for organizing human societies. As representatives of the ASP, it is our mission to insure that our social, economic and political institutions conform more closely to these principles of natural law.
Revolutions also become necessary at certain critical turning points in human history. There are times when the dominant paradigms for dealing with many of a society's most pressing problems simply become outmoded, or they simply stop working. We are now entering such a period. The ideologies that have come to define the bounds of the conventional wisdom (liberalism and conservatism) do not equip us to deal with many of the most serious challenges that we now face, and they are limiting our options. To stand the best chance of maintaining our standard of living, our place on the world stage, and our very way of life, we need a belief system that is much more comprehensive and synthetic, and one which will give us much more freedom of movement than either liberalism or conservatism.
If the founders were alive today, being the shrewd and pragmatic men that they were, they would probably side with us. After all, they were the original synthesists. Although the seeds that would eventually give rise to liberal and conservative factions may have been planted at the time of the founding, there were no liberal or conservative divisions in our government, as we understand them today. Most of all, the founders wanted to prevent these kinds of factions from arising. And, they would have never consented to the kind of adversarial and acrimonious political process that we have today. They would have never consented to dividing our society into two hostile camps, mainly along ideological lines. Rather, if they were confronted with such factions, they would quietly reflect on their causes, and they would attempt to bring about some kind of lasting reconciliation between the warring factions. If necessary, in order to best serve the public interest, they would invoke a "paradigm shift" that would be capable of neutralizing these factions. And, this is the mission that we must now undertake. We will be the champions of this paradigm shift. We will adopt whatever policy stance is necessary to secure the public interest over the longer term, and we will not be bound by either liberal or conservative ideologies.
In other developments, interest in the ASP continues to grow, not just in the US, but around the world. It seems that Americans are not the only ones looking for rational and workable political alternatives.
Publications
PEPTALK
(POLITICS, ETHICS and PHILOSOPHY TARGETING AMERICANS LOOKING for
KNOWLEDGE) IS NOW AVAILABLE ON CD. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHERE
OUR CIVILIZATION IS HEADED AND WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT, YOU NEED TO READ
THIS BOOK. ($39.95) 600 pages.
Paraphernalia
Flags, lapel pins and other party paraphernalia
to be available soon.
COPYRIGHT 2000-2010 BY ALEX VAN
ALLEN