• P.O. BOX 611, Bayboro, NC 28515
• ava333@mindspring.com

AMERICAN CENTRIST COALITION
CONQUISTACORPS
ECONOMIC ENGINEERING
END OF HISTORY CRITIQUE
ESSAYS ON ISSUES
EUGENICS AND CLONING
KULTURKAMPF NEW!!!
THE LINEAR COLONY CONCEPT
MEMBERS CENTER  COMING SOON!!!
NATURAL LAW AND ETHICS
POLITICAL ENGINEERING
RELIGION AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY PUBLICATION WILL BE DELAYED UNTIL 09
THE PRESERVATIONIST DOCTRINE
PROFIT FROM DOOM NEWS   COMING SOON!!!
THE SECULAR XENOPHYTE SYNTHESIS
A SOCIAL SCIENCE CRITIQUE
SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH

THE 08 GENERAL ELECTION
A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN
THE CONCEPT OF SYNTHESIS
INTRODUCTION
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 INTERIM PARTY PLATFORM (ESD1)
MEMBERSHIP AND CONTRIBUTIONS
JOIN OUR ONLINE COMMUNITY
PARTY PUBLICATIONS AND PARAPHERNALIA

The Democratic candidate is a non-starter. He does not represent mainstream America, nor is he intended to. The Democrats have become the party of the underclass. They represent a strong and potentially growing segment of the population that is more politically extreme and closer to the ideological left in its views. Enough said. This only leaves the Republicans. As a party, the Republicans have issues of their own which make them undesirable as well. The leadership of the Republic party is attempting to co-opt the Hispanic vote and, in order to do this, it is selling out on the illegal immigration issue. However, even though the Republican party leadership is gutless, there are a few Republican presidential candidates who have shown some resolve on the illegal immigration issue, namely, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul is basically a good guy, but he doesn't have the media presence that Huckabee has. Besides, Huckabee is marginally stronger on some issues, like illegal immigration. Huckabee would have been our first choice, but apparently, he is no longer viable as a candidate. At this stage, we are only left with McCain. McCain is the better of poor alternatives.

So, who is to blame for these poor choices that we have been given? The American people are to blame. Not all of them, of course, but a large enough number to count. Either with their indifference towards politics, or their ignorance about politics, the American people have allowed politics to reach its current dismal state. Specifically, the Americans who are most active in the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as all those Americans who are not active at all, have allowed politics to reach its current state.  These are the Americans we should blame. At this stage, the power and the numbers of both groups are enough to insure that the rest of us are just along for the ride.

The choices that we are left with in this election, more than any other election in our recent past, reminds me of the fact that: If you have God, right, reason and justice on your side, you will lose, unless you have the numbers. We simply do not have the numbers we need to win. However, you have the power to change this. That is to say, as one of the many Americans who are fed up with both Republicans and Democrats, you have the power to make a third party successful. But, having this power, and having the motivation to use this power are two separate issues. All that I can do by means of this website is use my reason to try and convince you why the ASP can become a successful challenger to the Republicans and Democrats. If I cannot give you sufficient reasons to join the ASP, if I cannot convince you that this party is the best alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats over the longer term, then it will take something more than reason. I believe that changing circumstances in your life will help me to make my argument.  Specifically, I believe that due to a combination of trends, our situation in the United States will become significantly worse over the coming years; socially, economically and politically. When conditions in this country become so bad that you feel you don't have any where else to turn, the ASP will be here for your consideration.

-Alex Van Allen

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 the tide has turned in favor of a third party, one of the major parties has taken the ideas that seem to be making the third party more popular, and incorporated these ideas into 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 a philosophy of life or 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 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.

The results of the 2004 presidential election dramatically illustrates just how much Americans need to reach a consensus over issues and ideologies. Building this consensus will require the construction of a carefully crafted synthesis, or a combination of viewpoints that are currently more closely associated with either the political left or the political right. Until such a synthesis is adopted by the people, as an alternative to liberalism and conservatism, our political leaders will be largely without a mandate; and our country will be largely without direction.

In order for our political leaders to receive a mandate from the people, the people must first send them a clear message. Currently, the people are sending our leaders a mixed message over the question of which direction the country should be headed. This is partly due to the fact that the major parties fail to give the people choices which they agree with. But, it is also due to the fact that the people themselves appear to be ambivalent and undecided over issues and ideas. It is primarily up to the American people to reach a consensus and to agree on important issues and ideas.

There is no hard and fast rule that says we have to line up on either the political left or the political right on all issues. We are free to pick and choose. If we want to mix apples and oranges, that is up to us. But we must agree beforehand that this is what we are going to do. We must agree that mixing certain policies on the left and the right will be best for the long term interests of the nation, if not best for us personally. If we are opposed to a particular policy on the basis of ideology, we need to be self-critical enough to ask whether or not our ideology is justified. Reason and knowledge should be our guides, not liberal or conservative ideologies.

If we let reason and knowledge be our guides, rather than ideology, we will discover that neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on the truth. Realizing this, we must conclude that the best solution for the nation is synthesis, or a combination of policies from both the political left and the political right. Synthesis is the key to breaking political stalemate and ideological deadlock. At the same time, not just any combination of liberal and conservative policies will do. There is an optimal synthesis, or a combination of liberal and conservative policies which will prove best for the long term interests of the American people.

On certain issues, the balance of truth clearly favors arguments that are more closely associated with the political left. On other issues, the balance clearly favors arguments that are more closely associated with the political right. By not holding liberal or conservative views across all issues, and by choosing to define ourselves as "synthesists" (rather than as liberals or conservatives) we gain the freedom to adopt a more liberal stand on one issue, and a more conservative stand on another issue, without contradicting ourselves. This is not ambivalence; this is the triumph of reason, judgment, and free will over the narrow and one-sided ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. In particular, it is the triumph of a sophisticated belief system over the relatively simple belief systems held by liberals and conservatives alike.

Today, when you vote for a candidate of one of the major political parties, you are also casting a proxy vote for either liberal or conservative ideology. When you vote for a Democrat, you are casting a proxy vote for the ideology of liberalism. When you vote for a Republican, you are casting a proxy vote for the ideology of conservatism. Because the major parties are polarized along lines of liberal and conservative ideologies, you can have either apples or oranges, but not both. However, suppose that you want to mix apples and oranges. Suppose your common sense tells you that neither liberals nor conservatives have all the right answers. Suppose your reason tells you that the best course for the nation involves a complex mixture of liberal and conservative policies. In either case, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will be able to accommodate you. For once again, both major parties are ideologically polarized.

The American Synthesis Party is designed to give Americans the opportunity to mix apples and oranges, if they want. Founded on January 3, 2000, the American Synthesis Party is one of America's youngest political parties. The doctrine of the A.S.P. may not as simple or as easy to understand as that of our competitors. But, it makes a lot more sense than holding liberal or conservative views across all issues. As the name of the party suggests, the party platform and the party doctrine are based upon the concept of "synthesis." Synthesis involves combining elements of opposing positions to form a new and internally consistent whole. In this case, the "opposing elements" are policies and ideas which are currently more closely associated with either the political left or the political right.

We hope that you will agree with the party's platform and doctrine, and we hope that you will become a member. To join online, and to bypass the usual application process, simply send a blank Email  with the word "join" in the subject line to: ava333@mindspring.com. There are no membership dues. At this early stage of the party's development, we need interest and commitment just as badly as we need funding. We specifically need a solid core of devotees who are willing to take the time that is required to read and understand the party's doctrine. If you end up disagreeing with the doctrine, that's fine. But we want you to understand it first.

To learn more about the ASP, its platform, and its doctrine, please continue reading this website, or visit one of our other websites.

PURPOSE OF THE AMERICAN SYNTHESIS PARTY
The American Synthesis Party was founded in response to a number of systemic needs which are not being adequately met by other political parties. The United States is at an important crossroads in its history. A host of serious problems confront us, ranging from illegal immigration and uncontrolled population growth to environmental destruction and the loss of habitat for endangered species. As more time passes, these problems get worse, and their consequences get passed on to future generations. Because the most effective solutions to these problems entail measures which their more radical constituents would not find acceptable, candidates of the major political parties are unwilling to propose them. And yet, numerous surveys indicate that the vast majority of Americans tend to favor many of these alternative solutions. Until one of the major political parties offers a comprehensive doctrine which represents what most Americans think about the important issues affecting their lives, the A.S.P. will respond to the challenge.

MEMORANDUM REGARDING CORE DOCTRINE COMPLETION

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 1600 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

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
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 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 INTERIM 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.

MEMBERSHIP AND CONTRIBUTIONS
To join the ASP,  just send an email with the word "join" in the subject line to ava333@mindspring.com. Please include your full name in the text portion of the email for our record keeping purposes. Nothing else is required for membership at this time. However, this will change in 09. Beginning in 09, a contribution of at least $20 will be required for membership.

Your contributions are badly needed and greatly appreciated, but are not required for membership at this time.  If you would like to make a contribution, either press the donate button below, or mail a check to the address below, payable to the ASP.

A.S.P.
P.O. BOX 611
Bayboro, NC 28515

Candidacy, Voting, and Member Obligations
At this phase of its development, the party is not prepared to offer candidates for office, though it may endorse candidates of other parties. For the next several years, the party's activities will focus on strengthening its base of support, and spreading the party doctrine. During this period, members are encouraged to vote for the candidates of their choice, even if they run for office under the label of one of the major parties. However, if you choose to vote for a candidate of one of the major parties, or for a candidate of another third party, it should only be because that candidate has professed certain views which closely coincide with American Synthesis Party doctrine. Alternatively, members may choose not to vote at all. When more and more people refuse to participate in the electoral process, it sends its own powerful and disconcerting signal to Washington. Keep this in mind. In the current political environment, principled abstinence is an acceptable alternative to voting, and is a major aspect of our party's long term strategy.

Your decision to become a member is not without its own unique set of obligations. If you desire to join the party, it is presumably because you would like to associate with others who share your commitment to the principles stated in ESD1, and because you would like to see these principles translated into the laws of the United States. Towards these ends, It is up to you to spread this doctrine and encourage other people to join the party. However, do not take these tasks lightly. Attempt to recruit people who already tend to agree with the doctrine. If you are a good communicator, attempt to convince others why they should accept the party doctrine themselves. Remember, we want our members to form a closely knit community. And, close similarity in beliefs is necessary for this purpose. Eventually, we will need numbers to become a viable political force. But at this stage in the party's development, the quality of our membership is the overriding concern.

You are encouraged to start informal groups in your area to study and discuss the complete party doctrine, once it becomes available. Presumably, these early discussion groups will be the seeds of the more formal local chapters, to be established in the near future. However, please keep in mind that selection for higher party posts will take place through a process of competitive examinations covering every aspect of party doctrine. Members can best prepare themselves to pass these examinations by completing the courses offered by SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH, our online educational affiliate.
 

JOIN OUR ONLINE COMMUNITY

Think you're the only ASP member in your area? Probably not. Join our online community to associate with others in your area
who have been bitten by the ASP.  Organize events, make new friends, network, and have fun!

Believe it or not, the ASP will not be a small, insignificant party forever. At some point, its membership will reach the critical mass
that is needed to propel the party into mainstream competition. Now is the time to begin building local party organizations in your
area. To participate in the online community, you must be a party member. By joining the party you will automatically be registered as a member of the OC in your area. Please indicate if you do not want your email address to be provided to other members in your area, or if you do not wish to join the OC, when you join the party. You can do this by simply saying: YES OC, or NO OC, in the text portion of the email you send to register as a member.

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.  ($39.99, includes shipping and handling.) Contains over 300 pages of new material.

Paraphernalia
Flags, lapel pins and other party paraphernalia to be available soon.

THE AMERICAN SYNTHESIS PARTY 

JOIN THE FIGHT......AGAINST THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT!!!

COPYRIGHT 2006 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN