PE1

INTRODUCTION TO THE AMERICAN SYNTHESIS PARTY
It is a very rare form of expression which can either change people's general outlook or change their political attitudes. This website cannot be expected to do either. Its main purpose is to inform, not to persuade. Towards this end, it will provide answers to some of the more basic questions about the American Synthesis Party (henceforth, the ASP). It will also introduce you to some of the more important elements of the party's political philosophy. For the novice, this philosophy can be difficult reading, simply because the problems of human society which are the focus of this philosophy cannot be easily reduced to simple terms. It is therefore mainly the responsibility of the reader to gain some understanding of these problems independently of this website.

When there are clear signs that important political institutions are failing, it is the responsibility of the average citizen to find out why these institutions are failing and to vigorously search for political alternatives which can reverse these failures. Citizens in a democracy have a moral obligation to learn about the most important issues affecting the destiny of their nation. They have an additional moral obligation to act on the basis of what they have learned. Just by attempting to understand this website and by considering it objectively, you are fulfilling the first of these obligations to your country. You fulfill the second moral obligation when you make the decision to either support or withhold your support for the party, as your conscience dictates. Such decisions are among the most important choices which citizens in a democracy can make. For ultimately, political choices devolve to moral choices.

For those who haven't figured it out yet, there is a close connection between the degree to which the citizens of democracy fulfill their moral obligations to their country, and their levels of political sophistication. If Americans lack the political sophistication they need to understand and thoughtfully reflect upon the alternatives presented in this website, it represents a much deeper moral failure of the American people themselves. As with all moral failures, this one will eventually have unforeseen and potentially far reaching consequences.

To attain the highest level of political sophistication, people must seek out and evaluate competing definitions of the public interest. In addition, people must educate themselves in the important concepts and belief systems which dominate political discourse and the political process. If a more "comprehensively rational" definition of the public interest presents itself, every American is obligated to throw off the yoke imposed by suboptimal definitions of the public interest. As part of this process, one must attempt to learn how the various ideologies tend to advance certain interests in society and tend to inhibit others. From this point, one must decide which belief system is most likely to serve the interests of the nation over the longer term. For the most politically sophisticated and thoughtful Americans, this website stands a reasonably good chance of satisfying the search for a set of political alternatives which can best advance the public interest over the longer term. This site will also propose a more "comprehensively rational" conception of the public interest which goes beyond the conceptions of the public interest held by either liberals or conservatives. As with all meaningful political alternatives, you owe it to yourself and to your country to give it a fair hearing.

The reasoning process which has gone into the creation of the policy alternatives which makeup the ASP platform is, at certain points, difficult to understand. But anyone who has taken the time to examine the many conflicts surrounding the various issues which are addressed in the party platform should quickly conclude that the party doctrine presents an essentially accurate depiction of important underlying truths about man and his society. The political solutions which the party doctrine recommends have a solid basis in social science facts. But, social science facts are like unprocessed gems which must be cut and polished in order to maximize their value, and in order to reveal their true quality. As it applies to the social science facts which have been integrated into the doctrine of the ASP, this "cutting and polishing" is accomplished by a mode of information processing which is free from the ideological biases and distortions inherent to the social sciences themselves. As evidence of this, one only has to observe the fact that the party doctrine does not consistently favor either liberal or conservative points of view, across all issues. According to the party doctrine, the truth about man and his society is randomly distributed across the ideological spectrum. On some issues, the balance of truth will tend to favor liberals. On other issues, the balance of truth will tend to favor conservatives. It is the nature of the truth about man and his society that it will not consistently favor either liberals or conservatives on every issue. This being the case, it is sheer stupidity to hold liberal or conservative views monolithically, and across all issues, just because these views are associated with the end of the ideological spectrum for which one holds the greatest affinity.

Because monolithic and polarized (as opposed to synthetic) ideological views have come to dominate political discourse in the United States, it is no wonder that Americans hate politics. The common sense of the common man is frequently at odds with both liberal and conservative ideologies. In fact, one could argue that Americans are perfectly justified in hating many of the most outspoken participants in the political process, because these participants are attempting to advance a conception of the public interest which does not in fact maximize the public interest over the longer term. And, in the degree that the conceptions of the public interest held by liberals and conservatives are suboptimal, these conceptions will lead to catastrophic systemic failures. Once these failures occur, and once the blame for these failures can be placed squarely on the backs of liberals and conservatives alike, the fortunes of a third party like the ASP can shift dramatically.

Building a third party which is viable and which can stand a realistic chance of breaking the hegemony of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans is the single greatest challenge facing innovators in American politics today. This challenge is complicated by the fact that third parties must compete against two major parties which are given special advantages under our electoral system. This challenge is further complicated by the fact that most Americans do not recognize the threats which the major parties and their ideologies represent for the future of the republic. In fact, many of these threats may not be immediate. They may take decades to materialize. But, once they become apparent, there will be little doubt that liberals and conservatives were both wrong.

Finally, establishing a viable third party is complicated by the complexity of the party's doctrine. Like all political parties, the ASP is in the business of promoting a political doctrine and a political philosophy. It is the party's philosophy, or if you prefer, its "ideology" that readily distinguishes the ASP from other political parties. Depending on their philosophies, most political parties can be readily assigned to a place on either the left or the right of the ideological continuum. But, this system for classifying political parties cannot be applied to a party whose political doctrine is "synthetic," like the ASP. By definition, a party whose doctrine is based on the concept of ideological synthesis cannot be assigned to a place along the ideological continuum. For a synthetic doctrine is an eclectic combination of viewpoints which spans the entire ideological spectrum from left to right. Such a belief system challenges the more commonly held notions of what it means to have an ideology.

Because the political doctrine of the ASP is relatively more complex and difficult to understand than the doctrines associated with the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism, many Americans will not initially attempt to understand it. However, many of the policies that makeup the ASP platform are readily accessible to the average person and can be easily understood by the vast majority. Hence, the complexities of the party philosophy should not inhibit the party's prospects for success. The fact that the second level of the party doctrine (the party philosophy, or its ideology) is relatively more complex and difficult to understand than the abstract arguments associated with either liberalism or conservatism, should not pose a serious obstacle to the public's receptivity to the party platform. Most people will be less concerned with the abstract elements of the party's philosophy which provide the core arguments and justifications for these policies. These elements will be of greater concern to academics, intellectuals and a handful of practicing politicians. Of far greater concern to most people will be the more concrete aspects of the party doctrine, and the policy alternatives that the party recommends in its platform.

The ASP offers a sophisticated alternative to the political doctrines associated with liberalism and conservatism, which only those people who have the greatest desire to advance the public interest will attempt to understand. And yet, presumably, there are vast numbers of people who are willing to make the effort to learn more about politics, once they realize how much is at stake for them personally. And while the more arcane elements of the party doctrine may not be of immediate interest to the general public, as world events begin to unfold in accordance with predictions made in the party doctrine, these events will add to the party's credibility and will tend to increase its public visibility. Once people become sufficiently interested in the party, they will be more willing to invest the time and effort required to master selected portions of the party doctrine. Despite the fact that the synthetic doctrine of the ASP is more complex than the polar belief systems of liberalism or conservatism, in a changed political environment, the party platform can become the centerpiece of a mass political ideology. As its potentialities begin to manifest themselves, it will become clear that this nascent political doctrine is capable of displacing both liberalism and conservatism as an alternative model for conceptualizing the public interest over the longer term. But, before exploring this doctrine in greater detail, one should know about its principal author.

A Personal Note from the Chairman
In the pages that follow I will outline the system of ideas which has given rise to the American Synthesis Party. But first, I will tell you a few things about myself, and about my educational background in particular. To begin with, Alex Van Allen is not my legal name; it is my pen name. At this point in my life, and at this stage in the party's development, maintaining some small degree of anonymity is very important to me. My pseudonym has served this purpose very well. At some point in the near future, I will reveal my true identity. But, until then, the following biographical information will have to suffice. No doubt some who have known me personally will be able to piece together this information to figure out my true identity. So be it.

I graduated from Armstrong Atlantic University in 1991, Magna Cum Laude, with a BA in political science. I went on to get my masters degree in public administration from the University of Georgia, in 1994. From this point I worked in several low level administrative positions for the city of Savannah. I also completed a total of eight years of service in the in the Air National Guard, between 1982 and 1997.

In 1995, I began work on my Ph.D. in political science. By 1998 I had completed all required course work for the Ph.D., and had passed both my written and oral exams. The only requirements for the Ph.D. which I failed to satisfy were the dissertation and final oral defense. Since 1998 my time has been devoted almost exclusively to refining the political doctrine that would become the basis for the ASP, which I founded in the year 2000. The ASP is ultimately intended to provide Americans with a viable alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties. If someone were to ask me: How do you build a third party, the best answer I could give them would be: One person at a time. Any student of third parties knows that there are many obstacles to success, and that it is likely to be a slow and demanding process. But, as I hope to show, principally by means of this website, there are good reasons for believing that building a successful third party can be done. At the very least, and given all that is at stake, it is certainly a project which is worth attempting. In addition, merely with the passage of time, the prospects for a third party such as the ASP will tend to improve dramatically.

Most of the party doctrine was formed as a result of my academic experience, particularly the work which I did towards my doctorate in political science. Since my earliest days as an undergraduate, I have had an strong interest in the study of ideology. This interest led me to ask such basic questions as why are liberals liberal, why are conservatives conservative, and which ideology is best for the nation over the longer term. My interest in ideology ultimately led me to persue a terminal degree in political science. And, though I majored in political science, it was never my intention to do social science per se. Rather, my aim was to take the best that I could find in social science, synthesize it, and use it as the basis for a belief system, or an ideology. I figured that if people are going to have an ideology, it might as well be as reasonable as possible. In short, it should be an ideology which is grounded in reason, and which is based upon science. Such an ideology bears no allegiance to either conservatism or liberalism, which are the political belief systems which most people use to make sense of the political world, and to interpret their own interests. It was my interest in the concepts of ideology and political sophistication which, more than anything else, motivated me to go as far as I did academically. Ultimately, this interest would also be responsible for my failure to obtain the Ph.D., for reasons that I will now explain.

In the field of political science, as with the social sciences more generally, a person can be denied access to a terminal degree for reasons which have little or nothing to do with the person's ability to develop an expertise in a particular field. One can be intelligent, a person of good character, and one can have completely mastered an area of knowledge and still not "qualify" to obtain a Ph.D. A lot has to do with the expertise of the faculty at the institution that one is attending, and how closely this expertise coincides with the focus of one's research. A lot also has to do with the willingness of faculty members to serve on a Ph.D. candidate's dissertation committee. A person's chances to obtain a Ph.D. are critically dependent on the willingness of a single faculty member to serve as the major professor, or as the chairman of the dissertation committee. If no faculty member is willing to serve as chairman, for whatever reason, then the candidate will not be able to obtain the Ph.D., even though the candidate may have gone as far as completing the dissertation.

The ability to complete the dissertation and to make a useful contribution to the knowledge base of one's chosen field should be the overriding factors which determine one's eligibility to receive the Ph.D. In my case, there were more than enough faculty members who were willing to serve on my dissertation committee. I will not mention my prospective committee members by name, but they included a former head of the political science department, and the current head of the social psychology department at the University of Georgia. But, mainly due to the fact that the focus of my research did not coincide with my committee members' own expertise, none of them would admit to being qualified to serve as chairman. To sum up matters, I failed to get my Ph.D. for reasons that were unrelated to the quality of my scholarship. Political science faculty members are under no obligation to serve on a doctoral committee if a candidate for the Ph.D. requests them to serve. Under the current system, anyone can decline to serve as chairman, for any reason.

Incidentally, there was one political science professor whose area of expertise came closer to the focus of my research than the others. When getting a Ph.D. came down to a matter of this faculty member's willingness to serve as the chairman of my dissertation committee, this individual declined to serve, and would not even admit to having expertise which coincided with the focus of my research. When asked to serve as major professor, the individual responded: "I am not an expert on ideology, nor have I had you as a student." It is worth noting that this individual taught a graduate course dealing directly with the subjects of ideology and political sophistication. It is also worth noting that the remaining prospective committee members who read my work (and who included some highly distinguished scholars), had generally favorable comments about those portions of my work which they read. These comments ranged from: "The five stage model of political sophistication was interesting and sensible." to: "Your theory and literature review seem very solid. You know the literature well and have highlighted the major components relevant to your research. Furthermore, you have begun to develop a theoretic construct that you can test empirically." Such favorable comments notwithstanding, by making it impossible for me to obtain the Ph.D., the political science faculty at UGA sealed my fate where any possibility of an academic career was concerned. This in turn freed me for the very important work in which I am now engaged, namely, completing this website and building a political party.

At this point, one might be interested in why someone would take on the seemingly impossible task of building a political party in the first place. My motivations for founding the ASP are relatively simple and straightforward. I believe that if I have better ideas of how the world should work, and of how the government should be run, that I should be able to put these ideas into practice. At the very least, I should be able to present these ideas to the public, where they can compete with other ideas about how the world should work and how the government should be run. A political party is generally the best instrument for these purposes. In addition, I don't think either political party is endorsing a set of policies which will be most likely to preserve either our quality of life, or our standard of living, over the longer term. Moreover, I don't believe that the limited world views offered by the leadership of either the Republican or Democratic parties is going to keep America out of trouble over the long run. There are many serious problems facing this nation, and neither of the major parties are dealing with these problems effectively. If these problems become chronic or get worse, it will jeopardize both our standard of living and our very way of life.

I will conclude this personal introduction by saying that starting a political party is not something that I do lightly. If one approaches this endeavor with the seriousness that it deserves, one quickly realizes that establishing a political doctrine and building an organization which is capable of putting that doctrine into practice entails a life long commitment. At the same time, I realize that no matter how seriously I approach these endeavors, it will take a great shift in the mindset of the American people for either the party or the doctrine to become successful. I am counting on this change in mindset to occur. I am counting on geopolitical events to unfold roughly in accordance with predictions made in the ASP doctrine.

As a people, Americans can no longer afford to leave their fate in the hands of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, special interest groups, lawyers, lobbyists, and academics. Americans must take back the reigns of power, by means of a grassroots movement of overwhelming force, if they are to retain their democracy, and if they are to preserve their way of life. The American people have the power to take back political power any time they really want. In a democracy, the people can change their form of government at any time, without unacceptable costs to themselves, provided that they are able to identify and unite behind an alternative form of government. Because America is a democracy, if our country fails, this failure will be largely due to some failure of the American people themselves. No one is holding a gun to the heads of the American people, and no one is making them vote for either Republicans or Democrats.

Our country will face many challenges in the coming century which we can only begin to imagine today. To determine what needs to be done to set this country on the proper course for the future, one must be able to visualize what is wrong with the path that we are currently on. One must realize that there is a mismatch between our dominant political belief systems, which are more appropriate to the last century, and our current needs. One must realize as well that the conceptual frameworks employed by both major political parties will not yield optimal solutions to a host of social, economic, and political problems which we now face. And finally, one must realize that the best way we can insure our survival as a people is to adopt a political system which is firmly grounded in truth. Neither liberalism nor conservatism meet this basic criterion.

To reiterate, the creation of a viable third party is the single greatest challenge in American politics today. I have responded to this challenge by actually creating a vital new political doctrine which is designed to serve the long term interests of the American people, and by founding a third party which I believe will best serve the country's needs over the course of the next century. Now it is time for you to do your part by reading this website, and by attempting to understand how the party doctrine relates to your own long term interests. If you believe that what I have written is true, and that my reasoning is sound, then you have not only made an intellectual judgment, but you have also made an important moral choice. In making this choice, you have incurred a moral obligation to help build the next great American political party.

Alex Van Allen,
Founder and Chair, ASP