People are usually able to find out information on some person for various of purpose that you want search for records of someone who is criminal and behind the bar just out of curiosity; or the companies search potential employees for hiring, or the landlords check on their tenants etc.

Search any record you’re looking for in 1 minute

In order to achieve this, you may get a private detective, which will get you the information within the shortest possible time, but cost much more expensive; or you may use public record in local government agencies and federal(usually used when the search involves lots of establishments and searching in other states),which will spend you a lot of time and a lot of money in some cases; or you may search public records online, which may be the most cost effective and easy-to-use method to get much information in a very short period of time, nevertheless, a small fee would be paid.

In briefly, government records may solve it.

What is the government record for?

Speaking to public records, people often tend to think of information on birth certificates , death certificates, and marriage and divorce license. Actually they are just a slight portion of all records that people easily access to.

As a matter of fact, government record is a kind of background check service that provide you with enough information on people’s private files, including phone numbers, civil and criminal records, family history, business records, driving records and a large series of relevant information except those four we have mentioned above.

Sign up Click here

Village of Carpentersville President Bill Sarto demands that his chief political opponent, Paul Humpher, be removed from office for being convicted of beating his wife, and due for sentencing. When trustees Ed Ritter, Kay Teeter, Judy Sigwalt, and Keith Hinz refuse to allow a motion for discusssing the issue — Bill Sarto loses all control. He screams at his fellow board members, calls one a “convict”, says another trustee’s son commits adultery, and ends his speech with what other board members take as a death threat. Recorded April 1, 2008, at the Village of Carpentesville Hall. (NOT an April Fool’s Joke!)

Question by big_scott_larock: What kind of incentives does the federal government offer to local governments to use renewable energy sources?
I’d like my town to build a wind farm. However, I know how local governments can be when it comes to paying for new projects. Will the federal government help defray some of the costs, if the city decides to build it?

Best answer:

Answer by Gary
Why not privatize the project? Get a private investor.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

New Book Shows Taxpayers How To “FOLLOW THE MONEY” of Local Government

Great Barrington, MA (Vocus) November 16, 2010

The recent elections show that Americans — of all political stripes — are extremely concerned about where their tax dollars are going. The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is encouraging them to extend their “watchdog” role by getting more involved and learning all they can about local government budgeting — the area of government where they can have the most impact, and which impacts them the most.

Although many citizens don’t know where to begin, getting involved is easier than most think, especially with AIER’s new handbook: FOLLOW THE MONEY: A Citizen’s Guide to Local Government.

The practical, tip-filled book explains that getting involved in local budget issues when the budgeting process begins, rather than on the eve of the final vote, enables citizens to truly influence how their local revenues are raised and how tax dollars are spent.

Knowing where and how to obtain budget information; how to read and interpret the numbers; how to identify critical public needs and set government priorities; what questions to ask and how to interact with public officials on fiscal matters are all part of what makes the AIER book a practical roadmap for having an impact at the local level.

Printed copies of the book can be purchased for $ 10 — or a PDF of the text can be downloaded from the institute’s web site for $ 5.

What’s certain is that with the right planning, citizens can hold local governments accountable and can ensure that local officials are prepared for hard economic times when they are hit by rising costs and declining tax revenues. Otherwise, municipalities could face bankruptcy, like Gould, Arkansas, Millport and Pritchard, Alabama, Westfall Township, Pennsylvania, and Vallejo, California, all of which are operating under bankruptcy protection today. Several others, including Detroit and Harrisburg — Pennsylvania’s state capital — have been flirting with bankruptcy.

“While local government most impacts the daily lives of Americans, it is the level of government to which most people pay the least attention,” said FOLLOW THE MONEY author Lynndee Kemmet, an AIER Visiting Research Fellow who received her MPA while working as a local government reporter in Southern California.

“It’s also the level of government they can most influence,” she points out. “It is our hope that FOLLOW THE MONEY will help.”

Copies of FOLLOW THE MONEY can be ordered by phone at 888-528-1216. Online orders can be placed by going to http://www.aier.org .

Note to Journalists: For a comp. copy of “Follow the Money” please contact Jennifer Berkowitz at the number below, or by email at Jennifer(at)PRoactiveSolutionsInc(dot)net.

###

Attachments

©Copyright 1997-2010, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.

I’m 58 years old! I am a Veteran of the U.S. Navy who worked in Top Secret communications! I am a Recovering drug Addict with over 13 years of clean time, after having used drugs for nearly 30 years! I have been incarcerated many times and am a convicted felon! I am a Certified Drug and Alcohol Abuse Counselor! Does this mean anything? Not in itself, but if I may, let me try to qualify! My primary presence on the Internet has been as the WebMaster of my Addiction Recovery site, “Addiction: Why Me?” I have had over a dozen articles pertaining to Addiction and Recovery from this disease, published on the Internet. I have had one article published regarding my Political views. I thought to myself, recently, why should anyone care what I think about politics? Well, just what does qualify someone to make public commentary? Surely, some of the commentators regularly on television don’t seem to know anything special! So, I’ll take a shot at making my case…

My family migrated from Missouri to California in 1958, when I was 9 years old. This move in itself most certainly changed my future and that of my entire family. Missouri is a conservative area. California is liberal and trendy. They are two very different places in our Society. Thus, ingrained midwestern values and beliefs were the root of our family, and over a lifetime, we have melted into the West Coast lifestyle and have become Californians. Thus said, on to my life as it pertains to my political views…

A teenager of the 1960’s, I’m sure that I am a typical baby-boomer in many ways. But, in many ways I’m not a typical or average citizen, at all! Only about 1% of the U.S. population succumbs to drug addiction. I am one of them! I am also a Veteran of the Armed Forces, also a small percentage of the population, since the WWII Vets are passing in great numbers. I am also a convicted felon. Would it surprise you to know that 1 out of 99 Americans is incarcerated over the course of a month? I don’t know the stats on those who have ever been incarcerated. Currently 2,300,000 Americans are incarcerated. That said, let’s move on to my individual case…

When I was 13, John Kennedy was assassinated. That event had a prominent effect on me as a person, as it did many Americans. The mystery of that incident brought politics into the lives of people who had previously basked in the luxury of the robust American lifestyle that followed WWII. Before that most citizens of the U.S. took it for granted that we had the best, most honest government possible. It has never been the same since. The Vietnam War added to the questionability of our undaunted faith in Government and it’s many agencies. When President Richard Nixon was branded as an outright liar, a little more confidence slipped away. Average American belief systems were challenged by the Civil Rights movement, the Women’s Rights movement, and concerted efforts on the part of our citizenry, as a united front, to force an end to the Vietnam War.

As I approached the age of 18, it was a safe assumption that I would be drafted into the military. Every boy who was not wealthy and able to find an exemption of the privileged, got drafted. That part has not changed. The poor still fight the wars for the rich. The poor still do the dieing for the Capitalists. Having had many friends die in Vietnam, I reached the conclusion that the only way to avoid being drafted into the Army Infantry was to enlist, which I did. On November 17, 1967 I took the Oath to defend my country in the U.S. Navy. I was just a kid. I had no idea how prolific an effect this would have on my life. The worst thing that happened as a result of serving was that my recreational experience with drugs would turn into an Addiction lasting nearly 30 years.

Politics came head on into my life as a Navy Radioman, working in Top Secret communications at the Commander-In-Chief of the Pacific Fleet Headquarters, Naval Communications Station, Message Center Makalapa, across the King Kamehameha Highway from Pearl Harbor, several stories underground. As a result of my security clearance, I became privy to all communications to the Pacific Fleet, including operational information between CINCPACFLT, the Pentagon, and the White House. I will not now and never have discussed any details of this information, as I took an oath not to. The only exception was in protected confidence with my Counselor in drug treatment at the VA Hospital program in Fresno, California. Even then, many details were omitted, and limited to a couple of sessions. The point being, that I found out many things that obliterated my trust in the Government. During this period, President Richard Nixon was forced out of office for basically deceiving the public and abusing his power, for political gain. I couldn’t avoid politics even if I had wanted to.

I re-entered civilian life skeptical of government, spiritually bankrupt, and severely addicted to drugs. My dependency started in Navy schools, with Benzedrine, an amphetamine. I eventually used drugs as psychological self-medication, also. Once addicted you use drugs for any and every reason you can think of, avoiding confronting the problems that they actually mask. The first year I was out, I didn’t work. I grew my hair out, and lived outside the norm, not desiring to be a part of anything, especially Society. I did get involved in the fight to stop the War in Vietnam, helping people beat the draft, and participating in demonstrations. In my mind, the government was responsible for everything that was wrong with the World and me. Though my thinking was very distorted, I became extremely politically aware, keeping up with the daily news, and being able to factually defend my positions as an anti-social personality developed in me. Marriages failed as a result of my Addiction. I lost and quit jobs as a result of my drug use and abuse. I went back and forth from a functional addict to a dysfunctional addict. I was in and out of jail. I became a pipeline welder with my own tools for the independence and high demand that made changing jobs easy. This lasted until drug testing became a regular part of the job market. I had chosen selling drugs as my profession, which made using that much easier. But, in the end the law caught up with me. After many incarcerations and many ups and downs, I just could not stay out of jail. My arrest on January 21, 1995, and a radical spiritual experience while facing a prison sentence, allowed me to acknowledge that I had hit my bottom. I had lost the will to live and broke down mentally during my detoxification from Meth, in jail. I resorted to prayer and my prayer was answered. I used drugs for the last time at the beginning of that jail term. I took my last drink on March 24, 1995. As a result of a plea bargain, my prison sentence was suspended on the terms that I serve one year in jail and one year in a drug treatment program. I would actually only serve four months in jail and remained in the program for six months. I entered the VA Hospital, Fresno, California, Chemical Dependency Treatment Program on April 11, 1995. As it turned out the very government that I had blamed for my problems for nearly 30 years, became my saving grace. I had to seriously re-assess my political views after that. At 50 I began my quest for Certification as a drug counselor at a State University. Little did I realize how politically dependent the profession I had chosen, was. After 7 years of Counseling I had a serious health crisis that took me off of work for 8 months. During this period of time the failing economy under the Republican administration, resulted in a major cancellation of Grants. Drug treatment depends hugely on Grants as treatment is a financial impossibility for most Addicts. Having lost my job and my health insurance, I found myself approaching 60, in a scant job market, competing with people half my age. I am now living on unemployment insurance compensation, with no real prospect for a job. Politics are again very crucial to my life. Republicans fund wars and big business. Democrats fund social programs and middle America. I fear it will take a robust economy and major funding for drug treatment before the market become great enough for the job competition in my field to accommodate my demographic. Meanwhile, I contribute meekly to the Democratic Party and depend on my Spirituality to get through, one day at a time. I sponsor a needy child through Children International, and have several family members, also in financial distress, living with me. I have developed a totally non-profit Addiction Recovery website, “Addiction: Why Me?” and use it to keep me sane and as my way of still being able to help other Addicts. I feel that my experiences with the military, the criminal justice system, and my Recovery from drug Addiction, have shaped a well-informed, highly aware political position and very well developed political opinions. Of course the key word is “opinion”! I feel very qualified to comment…

You be the judge! I will quote this article as a reference in all future political articles that I submit. Thank you, CounselorDave!

Video Rating: 0 / 5

More Political Views Articles
Question by FЯEEDO: What are your political and religious views?
Mwa: Atheist, Anarchist.

Thumb everyone one up you think has political views that most align with their religious views and thumb them down to the otherwise. Whoever people think has the most consistency in their views gets best answer.

Best answer:

Answer by Kiss me I have Swine Flu
Catholic pro-life Democrat.

What do you think? Answer below!

People are usually able to find out information on some person for various of purpose that you want search for records of someone who is criminal and behind the bar just out of curiosity; or the companies search potential employees for hiring, or the landlords check on their tenants etc.

Search any record you’re looking for in 1 minute

In order to achieve this, you may get a private detective, which will get you the information within the shortest possible time, but cost much more expensive; or you may use public record in local government agencies and federal(usually used when the search involves lots of establishments and searching in other states),which will spend you a lot of time and a lot of money in some cases; or you may search public records online, which may be the most cost effective and easy-to-use method to get much information in a very short period of time, nevertheless, a small fee would be paid.

In briefly, government records may solve it.

What is the government record for?

Speaking to public records, people often tend to think of information on birth certificates , death certificates, and marriage and divorce license. Actually they are just a slight portion of all records that people easily access to.

As a matter of fact, government record is a kind of background check service that provide you with enough information on people’s private files, including phone numbers, civil and criminal records, family history, business records, driving records and a large series of relevant information except those four we have mentioned above.

Sign up Click here

Q: How responsive is local government to the needs and requests of their citizens? A: Local government, especially in towns like Westport, is very responsive to the needs and requests of its citizens. Support: An in-depth example of how responsive local government is to the needs and requests of its citizens can be seen through Westports RTM meetings. -Broadcast through local TV network (channel 78) so those who cannot attend the meeting can watch and be informed from home. -Open-attendance: local citizens are permitted and encouraged to attend these meetings, to become informed with up-to-date analysis on local, federal, and international affairs. -Open-voice: citizens are encouraged to speak up during meetings, either to suggest a new policy or comment on a current proposal, etc. (those who cannot attend may send in comments via email to the local government site online). -Plans, schedules, announcements, and agendas are available either at town hall or can be easily accessed on the government site. -Suggestions, comments, plans proposed by the citizens or Westport go through serious consideration by the RTM board. Discussion is held, and often, many official Westport plans/agendas get processed very quickly. – Our perception of a mere local government has changed drastically. From what first seemed like an insignificant association, we now realize that the local government indeed plays an integral part of the national government and has great potential in influencing …
Video Rating: 0 / 5

Find More Local Government Articles

GSA Logo

Washington (Vocus) June 26, 2008

USASearch.gov, the federal government’s official search engine, today launched a newly enhanced program offering free search capabilities to all federal, state, local, tribal and territorial government Web sites. The “search affiliate” program offers a free search engine to all government Web sites, operated by USASearch.gov, which indexes over 50 million federal, state, local, tribal and territorial government documents. USASearch.gov is managed by the U.S. General Service Administration’s Office of Citizen Services.

All features are offered free of charge, including no cost for service and upgrades, and include:

    A free search engine that searches USASearch.gov’s 50 million indexed government documents;
    News, image and FAQ search results;
    Local weather forecasts from the National Weather Service;
    Mapping and search localization;
    Access to Congressional contact information; federal government forms; information about federal government job openings, aid and benefits; and
    Spotlight features on the most popular and relevant searches.

All results returned by USASearch.gov are ad-free, from trusted government resources managed by government search editors. Easy online management, with a customizable look and several customizable features allow government Web site managers flexibility in incorporating the USASearch.gov search engine into their Web sites. USASearch.gov is driven by Vivisimo’s search technology, which allows users to quickly refine their searches.

Government Web site managers interested in utilizing USA.gov’s free search engine can find more information and sign up to use this service at www.usaservices.gov/search.

GSA provides a centralized delivery system of products and services to the federal government, leveraging its enormous buying power to get the best value for taxpayers.

    Founded in 1949, GSA manages more than one-fourth of the government’s total procurement dollars and influences the management of $ 500 billion in federal assets, including 8,600 government-owned or leased buildings and 208,000 vehicles.
    GSA helps preserve our past and define our future, as a steward of more than 420 historic properties, and as manager of USA.gov, the official portal to federal government information and services.
    GSA’s mission to provide superior workplaces, expert technology solutions, acquisition services, purchasing and E-Gov travel solutions and management policies, at best value, allows federal agencies to focus on their core missions.

Did You Know? USASearch.gov currently provides search capabilities to over 200 federal, local, state, territorial and tribal governments.

Contact:

Lindsey Willis

(202) 501-1231

lindsey.willis@gsa.gov

# # #

People are usually able to find out information on some person for various of purpose that you want search for records of someone who is criminal and behind the bar just out of curiosity; or the companies search potential employees for hiring, or the landlords check on their tenants etc.

Search any record you’re looking for in 1 minute

In order to achieve this, you may get a private detective, which will get you the information within the shortest possible time, but cost much more expensive; or you may use public record in local government agencies and federal(usually used when the search involves lots of establishments and searching in other states),which will spend you a lot of time and a lot of money in some cases; or you may search public records online, which may be the most cost effective and easy-to-use method to get much information in a very short period of time, nevertheless, a small fee would be paid.

In briefly, government records may solve it.

What is the government record for?

Speaking to public records, people often tend to think of information on birth certificates , death certificates, and marriage and divorce license. Actually they are just a slight portion of all records that people easily access to.

As a matter of fact, government record is a kind of background check service that provide you with enough information on people’s private files, including phone numbers, civil and criminal records, family history, business records, driving records and a large series of relevant information except those four we have mentioned above.

Sign up Click here

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES:

The Democratic Party (DNC) today

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

Brief History of  the Democratic Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected the 42nd President of the United States. President Clinton ran on the promise of a New Covenant for America’s forgotten working families. After twelve years of Republican presidents, America faced record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. President Clinton’s policies put people first and resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in peacetime history. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 — passed by both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote — put America on the road to fiscal responsibility and led to the end of perennial budget deficits. Having inherited a 0 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton’s last budget was over 0 billion in surplus. The Clinton/Gore Administration was responsible for reducing unemployment to its lowest level in decades and reducing crime to its lowest levels in a generation. In 1996, President Clinton became the first Democratic president reelected since Roosevelt in 1996. In 1998, Democrats became the first party controlling the White House to gain seats in Congress during the sixth year of a president’s term since 1822.

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

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

The Democratic Donkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican Party (RNC) today

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

Brief History of  the Republican Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origin Of The Republican Elephant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE THIRD PARTIES:
(in alphabetical order)

America First Party

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

American Party

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

American Heritage Party

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

American Independent Party

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

American Nazi Party

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

American Reform Party

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

Christian Falangist Party of America

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

Communist Party USA

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

Constitution Party

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

Constitutional Action Party

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

Family Values Party

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

Freedom Socialist Party / Radical Women

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

Grassroots Party

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

Green Party of the United States (Green Party)

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

The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA)

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

Independence Party

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

Independent American Party

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

Labor Party

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

Libertarian Party

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

Light Party

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

Natural Law Party

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

New Party

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

New Union Party

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

Peace & Freedom Party

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

Prohibition Party

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

Reform Party

Once of rapidly growing, populist third party, the Reform Party shifted far to the right in recent years – but then experienced massive waves of conservative defections away into the Constitution Party and the new America First Party in 2002. First, some history: after running as an Independent in 1992, billionaire Texas businessman Ross Perot founded the Reform Party in 1995 as his vehicle for converting his independent movement into a permanent political party. In 1996, Perot ran as the Reform Party’s presidential nominee (8,085,000 votes – 8%). Although an impressive showing for a third party, it was much less than the 19 million votes Perot carried as an independent candidate back in 1992. The party traditionally reflected Perot’s center-conservative fiscal policies and anti-GATT/NAFTA views – while avoiding taking any official positions on social issues (although much of this group seemed to hold generally libertarian social views). The RP was plagued by a lengthy period of nasty ideological battles in 1998-2000 involving three main rival groups: the “Old Guard” Perot faction, the more libertarian Jesse Ventura faction, and the social conservative Pat Buchanan faction. A fourth group – a small but vocal Marxist faction led by RP activist Lenora Fulani – generally backed the Perot faction during these fights. To make this even more confusing, the Perot faction ultimately turned to Natural Law nominee and Maharishi follower John Hagelin as its “Stop Buchanan” candidate for President. After several nasty and public battles, the Ventura faction quit the RP in Spring 2000 and the old Perot faction lost control of the party in court to the Buchanan faction in Fall 2000 (and Perot ultimately endorsed Bush for President in 2000). That gave the Buchanan Brigade the party’s .6 million in federal matching funds. Within months, the Buchanan allies won control of nearly the entire party organization. Along with Buchanan’s rise to power in the party, the party made a hard ideological shift to the right – an ideological realignment that continues to dominate the RP. In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, it is clear that Buchanan failed in his efforts to establish a viable, conservative third party organization (comprised largely of disenchanted Republicans). Buchanan was on the ballot in 49 states, captured 449,000 votes (4th place – 0.4%) – and later told reporters that his foray into third party politics may have been a mistake. His weak showing also meant that the party is ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004. The new RP had the opportunity to become the leading social conservative third party (think of it as a Green Party for the right) – but more internal conflicts made this impossible. In Spring 2002, former Buchanan VP runningmate Ezola Foster and the California and Maryland RP leaders jumped to the Constitution Party. Almost simultaneously, the entire RP leadership in nearly 20 other states (the core of the Buchanan Brigade folks) defected en masse to form the new America First Party – delivering a demoralizing and devastating blow the the future viability of the RP. The remaining pieces of the RP now appear to be trying to reorganize back into a more centrist party – similar to the original one Perot wanted to create in the 1990s. But – without Perot’s involvement (and deep pockets) – even a new, centrist RP may have serious trouble rebuilding itself. Another official RP site is the State Party Organizations/RPUSA.

The Revolution

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

Socialist Party USA

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

A quick explanation of American politics.

Question by ѕтιℓℓ ∂σит gινє α fυ¢к♥: POLITICS…………………………….?
Ok, can someone give me an idea for a political issue (CURRENT EVENT) i could write about for school??

In other words….. WHATS A MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUE RIGHT NOW?

Ex. Quran burning, mosque… etc. Please no bias answers, this is for school. THANK YOU!!!

Best answer:

Answer by ♥вlυε сhïlḋ♥
George bush is still a homo

Add your own answer in the comments!

Olympia, WA (PRWEB) December 24, 2005

Good Politics Radio announces the “We the People” Award For Political Radio Excellence. We invite all radio show hosts in traditional broadcast media as well as online radio broadcasts/podcasts to submit their best show for consideration.

The radio show must have been aired during the year 2005 on either a traditional broadcast radio show or an Internet radio show and must be about something political on any political viewpoint. Winners will receive their awards in February, 2006 (date to be announced) in a televised broadcast that will be streamed on the internet. Winners in each category will receive a trophy, t-shirt and extensive promotion on Good Politics Radio and sister sites. The winner of the overall Best Political Radio Show of 2005 will receive a year free podcasting on the Good Politics Radio network as well as a major media blitz. Runner-ups will be featured on Good Politics Radio state pages as well as promoted as a part of the awards process.

Winners will be determined according to votes tallied on the Good Politics Radio website by Good Politics Radio listeners all over the world.

Categories include:

·    Best Political Radio Show About A Political Issue

·    Best Political Radio Show About A Political Candidate

·    Best Political Radio Show About The Political Process

·    Best Political Radio Show About Politics In General

·    Best Political Radio Show About Political History

·    Best Political Radio Show About A Political Figure

·    Best Political Radio Show That Teaches Politics To Youth

·    Best Political Radio Show That Promotes Voting

·    Best Political Public Access Radio Show

·    Best Collegiate Political Radio Show

·    Best Political Radio Show Overall

The submission form and award rules are posted at http://www.goodpoliticsradio.com/wethepeople/ .

To contact the station for more information, to get your radio show podcasted on Good Politics Radio, or to get an interview with the founder (Bonnie Dillabough) or one of the state assigned station masters, please call us at: 360-539-8324.

# # #

Introduction

Political system is one of the subsystem of society, and play sufficient role in our life.

The term political system refers to a recognized set of procedures for implementing and obtaining the goals of a group.

Each society must have a political system in order to maintain recognized procedures for allocating valued resources. In political scientist Harold Lasswell’s (1936) terms, politics is who gets what, when, and how. Thus, like religion and the family, a political system is a cultural universal; it is a social institution found in every society.

We will focus on government and politics within the United States as well as other industrialized nations and preindustrial societies. In their study of politics and political systems, sociologists are concerned with social interactions among individuals and groups and their impact on the larger political order. For example, in studying the controversy over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, sociologists might wish to focus on how a change in the group structure of American society—the increasing importance of the black vote for southern Democratic candidates—affected the decision making of Howell Heflin and other senators (and, ultimately, the outcome of the Bork confirmation battle). From a sociological perspective, therefore, a fundamental question is: how do a nation’s social conditions affect its day-to-day political and governmental life?

POWER

Power is at the heart of a political system. Power may be defined as the ability to exercise one’s will over others. To put it another way, if one party in a relationship can control the behavior of the other, that individual or group is exercising power. Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or even people in an intimate association. Blood and Wolfe (1960) devised the concept of marital power to describe the manner in which decision making is distributed within families.

There are three basic sources of power within any political system—force, influence, and authority. Force is the actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will on others. When leaders imprison or even execute political dissidents, they are applying force; so, too, are terrorists when they seize an embassy or assassinate a political leader. Influence, on the other hand, refers to the exercise of power through a process of persuasion. A citizen may change his or her position regarding a Supreme Court nominee because of a newspaper editorial, the expert testimony of a law school dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or a stirring speech at a rally by a political activist. In each case, sociologists would view such efforts to persuade people as examples of influence. Authority, the third source of power, will be discussed later.

Max Weber made an important distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power. In a political sense, the term legitimacy refers to the “belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to rule and that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that government”. Of course, the meaning of the term can be extended beyond the sphere of government. Americans typically accept the power of their parents, teachers, and religious leaders as legitimate. By contrast, if the right of a leader to rule is not accepted by most citizens (as is often the case when a dictator overthrows a popularly elected government), the regime will be considered illegitimate. When those in power lack legitimacy, they usually resort to coercive methods in order to maintain control over social institutions.

How is political power distributed among members of society?

Political power is not divided evenly among all members of society. How extreme is this inequality? Three theoretical perspectives answer this question in three different ways. First, Marxist theories suggest that power is concentrated in the hands of the few who own the means of production. Powerful capitalists manipulate social and cultural arrangements to increase further their wealth and power, often at the expense of the powerless.

Second, power elite theories agree that power is concentrated in the hands of a few people; the elite includes military leaders, government officials, and business executives. This group consists of those who occupy the top positions in our organizational hierarchies; they have similar backgrounds and share the same interests and goals. According to this view, any organization (even a nation-state) has a built-in tendency to become an oligarchy (rule by the few).

Third, pluralist theories suggest that various groups and interests compete for political power. In contrast to Marxist and power elite theorists, pluralists see power as dispersed among many people and groups who do not necessarily agree on what should be done. Lobbyists for environmental groups, for example, will battle with lobbyists for the coal industry over antipollution legislation. In this way the will of the people is translated into political action. Thurow, however, suggests that too many divergent views have made it nearly impossible to arrive at a public policy that is both effective in solving social problems and satisfactory to different interest groups.

TYPES OF AUTHORITY

The term authority refers to power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by the people over whom it is exercised. Sociologists commonly use the term in connection with those who hold legitimate power through elected or publicly acknowledged positions. It is important to stress that a person’s authority is limited by the constraints of a particular social position. Thus, a referee has the authority to decide whether a penalty should be called during a football game but has no authority over the price of tickets to the game.

Max Weber (1947) provided a classification system regarding authority that has become one of the most useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology. He identified three ideal types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Weber did not insist that particular societies fit exactly into any one of these categories. Rather, all can be present in a society, but their relative degree of importance varies. Sociologists have found Weber’s typology to be quite valuable in understanding different manifestations of legitimate power within a society.

Traditional Authority

In a political system based on traditional authority, legitimate power is conferred by custom and accepted practice. The orders of one’s superiors are felt to be legitimate because “this is how things have always been done.” For example, a king or queen is accepted as ruler of a nation simply by virtue of inheriting the crown. The monarch may be loved or hated, competent or destructive; in terms of legitimacy, that does not matter. For the traditional leader, authority rests in custom, not in personal characteristics, technical competence, or even written law.

Traditional authority is absolute in many instances because the ruler has the ability to determine laws and policies. Since the authority is legitimized by ancient custom, traditional authority is commonly associated with preindustrial societies. Yet this form of authority is also evident in more developed nations. For example, a leader may take on the image of having divine guidance, as was true of Japan’s Emperor Hirohito, who ruled during World War II. On another level, ownership and leadership in some small businesses, such as grocery stores and restaurants, may pass directly from parent to child and generation to generation.

Legal-Rational Authority

Power made legitimate by law is known as legal-rational authority. Leaders of such societies derive their authority from the written rules and regulations of political systems. For example, the authority of the president of the United States and the Congress is legitimized by the American Constitution. Generally, in societies based on legal-rational authority, leaders are conceived as servants of the people. They are not viewed as having divine inspiration, as are the heads of certain societies with traditional forms of authority The United States, as a society which values the rule of law, has legally defined limits on the power of government. Power is assigned to positions, not to individuals. Thus, when Ronald Reagan became president in early 1981, he assumed the formal powers and duties of that office as specified by the Constitution. When Reagan’s presidency ended, those powers were transferred to his successor.

If a president acts within the legitimate powers of the office, but not to our liking, we may wish to elect a new president. But we will not normally argue that the president’s power is illegitimate. However, if an official clearly exceeds the power of an office, as Richard Nixon did by obstructing justice during investigation of the Watergate burglary, the official’s power may come to be seen as illegitimate. Moreover, as was true of Nixon, the person may be forced out of office.

Charismatic Authority

Weber also observed that power can be legitimized by the charisma of an individual. The term charismatic authority refers to power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers. Charisma allows a person to lead or inspire without relying on set rules or traditions. Interestingly, such authority is derived more from the beliefs of loyal followers than from the actual qualities of leaders. So long as people perceive the person as possessing qualities that set him or her apart from ordinary citizens, the leader’s authority will remain secure and often unquestioned.

Political scientist Ann Ruth Willner (1984) notes that each charismatic leader draws upon the values, beliefs, and traditions of a particular society. The conspicuous sexual activity of longtime Indonesian president Achmed Sukarno reminded his followers of the gods in Japanese legends and therefore was regarded as a sign of power and heroism. By contrast, Indians saw Mahatma Gandhi’s celibacy as a demonstration of superhuman self-discipline. Charismatic leaders also associate themselves with widely respected cultural and religious heroes. Willner describes how Ayalollah Khomeini of Iran associated himself with Husein, a Shiile Muslim martyr; and Fidel Castro of Cuba associated himself with Jesus Christ.

Unlike traditional rulers, charismatic leaders often become well known by breaking with established institutions and advocating dramatic changes in the social structure. The strong hold that such individuals have over their followers makes it easier to build protest movements which challenge the dominant norms and values of a society. Thus, charismatic leaders such as Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all used their power to press for changes in accepted social behavior. But so did Adolf Hitler, whose charismatic appeal turned people toward violent and destructive ends.

Since it rests on the appeal of a single individual, charismatic authority is necessarily much shorter lived than either traditional or legal-rational authority. As a result, charismatic leaders may attempt to solidify their positions of power by seeking other legitimating mechanisms. For example, Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959 as the leader of a popular revolution. Yet in the decades which followed the seizure of power, Castro stood for election (without opposition) as a means of further legitimating his authority as leader of Cuba.

If such authority is to extend beyond the lifetime of the charismatic leader, it must undergo what Weber called the routinization of charismatic authority—the process by which the leadership qualities originally associated with an individual are incorporated into either a traditional or a legal-rational system. Thus, the charismatic authority of Jesus as leader of the Christian church was transferred to the apostle Peter and subsequently to the various prelates (or popes) of the faith. Similarly, the emotional fervor supporting George Washington was routinized into America’s constitutional system and the norm of a two-term presidency. Once routinization has taken place, authority eventually evolves into a traditional or legal-rational form.

As was noted earlier, Weber used traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic authority as ideal types. In reality, particular leaders and political systems combine elements of two or more of these forms. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy wielded power largely through the legal-rational basis of their authority. At the same time, they were unusually charismatic leaders who commanded (lie personal loyalty of large numbers of Americans.

TYPES OF GOVERNMENT

Each society establishes a political system by which it is governed. In modern industrial nations, a significant number of critical political decisions are made by formal units of government. Five basic types of government are considered: monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, and democracy.

Monarchy

A monarchy is a form of government headed by a single member of a royal family, usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler. In earlier times, many monarchs claimed that God had granted them a divine right to rule their lands. Typically, they governed on the basis of traditional forms of authority, although these were sometimes accompanied by the use of force. In the 1980s, monarchs hold genuine governmental power in only a few nations, such as Monaco. Most monarchs have little practical power and primarily serve ceremonial purposes.

Oligarchy

An oligarchy is a form of government in which a few individuals rule. It is a rather old method of governing which flourished in ancient Greece and Egypt. Today, oligarchy often takes the form of military rule. Some of the developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are ruled by small factions of military officers who forcibly seized power—either from legally elected regimes or from other military cliques.

Strictly speaking, the term oligarchy is reserved for governments run by a few select individuals. However, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China can be classified as oligarchies if we extend the meaning of the term somewhat. In each case, power rests in the hands of a ruling group—the Communist party. In a similar vein, drawing upon conflict theory, one may argue that many industrialized “democratic” nations of the west should rightly be considered oligarchies, since only a powerful few actually rule: leaders of big business, government, and the military. Later, we will examine this “elite model” of the American political system in greater detail.

Dictatorship and Totalitarianism

A dictatorship is a government in which one person has nearly total power to make and enforce laws. Dictators rule primarily through the use of coercion, often including torture and executions. Typically, they seize power, rather than being freely elected (as in a democracy) or inheriting a position of power (as is true of monarchs). Some dictators are quite charismatic and achieve a certain “popularity,” though this popular support is almost certain to be intertwined with fear. Other dictators are bitterly hated by the populations over whom they rule with an iron hand.

Frequently, dictatorships develop such overwhelming control over people’s lives that they are called totalitarian. Monarchies and oligarchies also have the potential to achieve this type of dominance. Totalitarianism involves virtually complete governmental control and surveillance over all aspects of social and political life in a society. Bolt Nazi Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union of the 1980s are classified as totalitarian states.

Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski have identified six bask traits that typify totalitarian states. These include:

Large-scale use of ideology. Totalitarian societies offer explanations for every part of life. Social goals, valued behaviors, even enemies are conveyed in simple (and usually distorted) terms. For example, the Nazis blamed Jews for almost every. thing wrong in Germany or other nations. If there was a crop failure due to drought, it was sure to be seen as a Jewish conspiracy. One-party systems. A totalitarian Style has only one legal political party, which monopolizes the offices of government. It penetrates and controls all social institutions and serves as the source of wealth, prestige, and power. Control of weapons. Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms. All military units art subject to the control of the ruling regime. Terror. Totalitarian states often rely on general intimidation (such as prohibiting unapproved publications) and individual deterrent (such as torture and execution) to maintain control (Bahry and Silver, 1987). Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago (1973) describe the Soviet Union’s imprisonment of political dissenters in mental hospitals, where they are subjected to drug and electric shock treatments. Control of the media. There is no “opposition press” in a totalitarian state. The media communicate official interpretations of events and reinforce behaviors and policies favored by the regime. Control of the economy. Totalitarian states control major sectors of the economy. They may dissolve private ownership of industry and even small farms. In some cases, the central state establishes production goals for each industrial and agricultural unit. The revolt of the Polish workers’ union. Solidarity, in the early 1980s was partly directed against the government’s power over production quotas, working conditions, and prices.

Through such methods, totalitarian governments deny people representation in the political, economic, and social decisions that affect their lives. Such governments have pervasive control over people’s destinies.

Democracy

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

The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing our laws. However, critics have questioned how representative our democracy is. Are the masses genuinely represented? Is there authentic self-government in the United States or merely competition between powerful elites?

Clearly, citizens cannot be effectively represented if they are not granted the right to vote. Yet our nation did not enfranchise black males until 1870, and women were not allowed to vote in presidential elections until 1920. American Indians were allowed to become citizens (thereby qualifying to vote) only in 1924, and as late as 1956, some states prevented Indians from voting in local elections if they lived on reservations.

Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the democratic form of government implies an opposition which is tolerated or, indeed, encouraged to exist. In the United States, we have two major political parties—the Democrats and Republicans—as well as various minor parties. Sociologists use the term political party to refer to an organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and exercise power. Whether a democracy has two major political parties (as in the United States) or incorporates a multiparty system (as in France and Israel), it will typically stress the need for differing points of view.

Seymour Martin Upset, among other sociologists, has attempted to identify the factors which may help to bring about democratic forms of government. He argues that a high level of economic development encourages both stability and democracy. Upset reached this conclusion after studying 50 nations and finding a high correlation between economic development and certain forms of government.

Why should there be such a link? In a society with a high level of development, the population generally tends to be urbanized and literate and is better equipped to participate in decision making and make the views of its members heard. In addition, as Upset suggests, a relatively affluent society will be comparatively free from demands on government by low-income citizens. Poor people in such nations can reasonably aspire to upward mobility. Therefore, along with the large middle class typically found in industrial societies, the poorer segments of society may have a stake in economic and political stability.

Upset’s formulation has been attacked by conflict theorists, who tend to be critical of the distribution of power within democracies. As we will see later, many conflict theorists believe that the United States is run by a small economic and political elite. At the same time, they observe that economic stability does not necessarily promote or guarantee political freedoms. Lipset (1972) himself agrees that democracy in practice is far from ideal and that one must distinguish between varying degrees of democracy in democratic systems of government. Thus, we cannot assume that a high level of economic development or the self-proclaimed label of “democracy” assures freedom and adequate political representation.

POLITICAL BEHAVIOR IN THE UNITED STATES

As American citizens we take for granted many aspects of our political system. We are accustomed to living in a nation with a Bill of Rights, two major political parties, voting by secret ballot, an elected president, state and local governments distinct from the national government, and so forth. Yet, of course, each society has its own ways of governing itself and making decisions. Just as we expect Democratic and Republican candidates to compete for public offices, residents of the Soviet Union are accustomed to the domination of the Communist party. In this section, we will examine a number of important aspects of political behavior within the United States.

Political Socialization

Five functional prerequisites that a society must fulfill in order to survive were identified. Among these was the need to teach recruits to accept the values and customs of the group. In a political sense, this function is crucial; each succeeding generation must be encouraged to accept a society’s basic political values and its particular methods of decision making.

Political socialization is the process by which individuals acquire political attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior. This involves not only learning the prevailing beliefs of a society but also coming to accept the surrounding political system despite its limitations and problems. In the United States, people are socialized to view representative democracy as the best form of government and to cherish such values as freedom, equality, patriotism, and the right of dissent.

The principal institutions of political socialization are those which also socialize us to other cultural norms—including the family, schools, and the media. Many observers see the family as playing a particularly significant role in this process. “The family incubates political man,” observed political scientist Robert Lane. In fact, parents pass on their political attitudes and evaluations to their sons and daughters through discussions at the dinner table and also through the example of their political involvement or apathy. Early socialization does not always determine a person’s political orientation; there are changes over time and between generations. Yet research on political socialization continues to show that parents’ views have an important impact on their children’s outlook.

The schools can be influential in political socialization, since they provide young people with information and analysis of the political world. Unlike the family and peer groups, schools are easily susceptible to centralized and uniform control; consequently, totalitarian societies commonly use educational institutions for purposes of indoctrination. Yet, even in democracies, where local schools are not under the pervasive control of the national government, political education will generally reflect the norms and values of the prevailing political order.

In the view of conflict theorists, American students learn much more than factual information about our political and economic way of life. They are socialized to view capitalism and representative democracy as the “normal” and most desirable ways of organizing a nation. At the same time, competing values and forms of government are often presented in a most negative fashion or are ignored. From a conflict perspective, this type of political education serves the interests of the powerful and ignores the significance of the social divisions found within the United States.

It is difficult to pinpoint a precise time in which politics is learned. Fred Greenstein argues that the crucial time in a young person’s psychological, social, and political development is between ages 9 and 13. In the same vein, one study found that children 13 and 14 years of age were much more able to understand abstract political concepts than were children a few years younger. Specifically, in response to a question about the meaning of government, older children tended to identify with Congress, whereas younger children identified with a more personal figure such as the president. Other research, however, points to a significant leap in political sophistication during the ages of 13 to 15.

Surprisingly, expression of a preference for a political party often comes before young people have a full understanding of the political system. Surveys indicate that 65 to 75 percent of children aged 10 and 11 express commitment to a specific political label, including “independent.” Political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi (1974) have found that children who demonstrate high levels of political competence—by understanding the differences between political parties and between liberal and conservative philosophies—are more likely to become politically active during adulthood.

Like the family and schools, the mass media can have obvious effects on people’s thinking and political behavior. Beginning with the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates of 1960, television has given increasing exposure to political candidates. One result has been the rising importance of politicians’ “images” as perceived by the American public. Today, many speeches given by our nation’s leaders are designed not for immediate listeners, but for the larger television audience. In the social policy section later, we will examine the impact of television on American political campaigns.

Although television has obvious impact on elective politics, it has also become an important factor in other aspects of American political life. In 1987, when a joint congressional committee held televised hearings on the Iran-contra scandal, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s outspoken testimony brought him a wave of public support. One effect of his media success, though primarily in the short run, was an increase in support for the “contras” and their effort to overthrow Nicaragua’s Marxist regime. By contrast. Judge Robert Bork’s televised testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1987 seemed to hurt his chances of winning confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

A number of communication studies have reported that the media do not tend to influence the masses of people directly. Elihu Katz (1957) describes the process as a two-step flow of communication, using an approach which reflects interactionists’ emphasis on the social significance of everyday social exchanges. In Katz’s view, messages passed through the media first reach a small number of opinion leaders, including teachers, religious authorities, and community activists. These leaders “spread the word” to others over whom they have influence.

Opinion leaders are not necessarily formal leaders of organized groups of people. For example, someone who hears a disturbing report about the dangers of radioactive wastes in a nearby river will probably tell family members and friends. Each of these persons may inform still others and perhaps persuade them to support the position of an environmentalist group working to clean up the river. Of course, in any communications process in which someone plays an intermediate role, the message can be reinterpreted. Opinion leaders can subtly transform a political message to their own ends.

Participation and Apathy

In theory, a representative democracy will function most effectively and fairly if there is an informed and active electorate communicating its views to government leaders. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case in the United States. Virtually all Americans are familiar with the basics of the political process, and most tend to identify to some extent with a political party, but only a small minority (often members of the higher social classes) actually participate in political organizations on a local or national level. Studies reveal that only 8 percent of Americans belong to a political club or organization. Not more than one in five has ever contacted an official of national, state, or local government about a political issue or problem.

The failure of most Americans to become involved in political parties has serious implications for the functioning of our democracy. Within the political system of the United States, the political party serves as an intermediary between people and government. Through competition in regularly scheduled elections, the two-party system provides for challenges to public policies and for an orderly transfer of power. An individual dissatisfied with the state of the nation or a local community can become involved in the political party process in many ways, such as by joining a political club, supporting candidates for public office, or working to change the party’s position on controversial issues. If, however, people do not take interest in the decisions of major political parties, public officials in a “representative” democracy will be chosen from two unrepresentative lists of candidates. In the 1980s, it has become clear that many

Americans are turned off by political parties, politicians, and the specter of big government. The most dramatic indication of this growing alienation comes from voting statistics. Voters of all ages and races appear to be less enthusiastic than ever about American elections, even presidential contests. For example, almost 80 percent of eligible American voters went to the polls in the presidential election of 1896. Yet, by the 1984 election, voter turnout had fallen to less than 60 percent of all adults. By contrast, elections during the first half of the 1980s brought out 85 percent or more of the voting-age population in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Sweden.

Declining political participation allows institutions of government to operate with less of a sense of accountability to society. This issue is most serious for the least powerful individual and groups within the United States. Voter turn out has been particularly low among younger Americans and members of racial and ethnic minorities. In 1984, only 36 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 20 went to the polls. According to a postelection survey, only 55.8 percent of eligible black voters and 32.6 percent of Hispanic reported that they had actually voted. Moreover, the poor—whose focus understandably is on survival—are traditionally under-represented among voters as well. The low turnout found among these groups is explained, at least in part, by their common feeling of powerlessness. Yet such voting statistics encourage political power brokers to continue to ignore the interests of the young, the less affluent, and the nation’s minorities.

Sociologist Anthony Orum notes that people are more likely to participate actively in political life if they have a sense of political efficacy—that is, if they feel that they have (he ability to influence politicians and the political order. In addition, citizens are more likely to become involved if they trust political leaders or feel that an organized political party represents their interest. Without question, in an age marked by the rise of big government and by revelations of political corruption at the highest levels, many Americans of all social groups feel powerless and distrustful. Yet such feelings are especially intense among the young, the poor, and minorities. is a result, many view political participation, including voting, as a waste of time.

Cross-national comparisons, while confirming he comparatively low level of voting in the linked States, also suggest that Americans are more likely than citizens of other nations to be active at the community level, to contact local officials on behalf of themselves or others, and to have worked for a political party. Perhaps this contrast reflects how unusual it is for people to be directly involved in national political decision making in the modem world. Nevertheless, it is possible to speculate that if tens of millions of Americans did not stay home on Election Day— and instead became more active in the nation’s political life—the outcome of the political process might be somewhat different.

Women and Politics

In 1984, American women achieved an unprecedented political breakthrough when Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York became the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States. Never before had a woman received the nomination of a major party for such high office.

Nevertheless, women continue to be dramatically underrepresented in the halls of government. In 1988, there were only 23 women (out of 435 members) in the House of Representatives and only 2 women (out of 100 members) in the Senate. This is not because women have failed to participate actively in political life. Eligible women vote at a slightly higher rate than men. The League of Women Voters, founded in 1920, is a nonpartisan organization which performs valuable functions in educating the electorate of both sexes. Perhaps the most visible role of women in American politics is as unpaid workers for male candidates: ringing doorbells, telephoning registered voters, and carrying petitions. In addition, wives of elected male politicians commonly play significant supportive roles and are increasingly speaking out in their own right on important and controversial issues of public policy.

The sexism of American society has been the most serious barrier to women interested in holding public office. Female candidates have had to overcome the prejudices of both men and women regarding women’s fitness for leadership. Not until 1955 did a majority of Americans state that they would vote for a qualified woman for president. Yet, as a 1984 national survey revealed, Americans say they will support a woman running for office only if she is by far the most qualified candidate.

Moreover, women often encounter prejudice, discrimination, and abuse after they are elected. In 1979, a questionnaire was circulated among male legislators in Oregon, asking them to “categorize the lady legislators” with such labels as “mouth, face, chest/dress, and so forth”.

Despite such indignities, women are becoming more successful in winning election to public office. For example, there were 1176 women in state legislatures in 1988, as compared with only 31 in 1921,144 in 1941, and 301 in 1969. Not only are more women being elected; more of them are identifying themselves as feminists. The traditional woman in politics was a widow who took office after her husband’s death to continue his work and policies. However, women being elected in the 1980s are much more likely to view politics as their own career rather than as an afterthought. These trends are not restricted to the United States.

A new dimension of women and politics emerged in the 1980s. Surveys detected a growing “gender gap” in the political preferences and activities of males and females. Women were more likely to register as Democrats than as Republicans and were also more critical of the policies of the Republican administration. What accounts for this “gender gap”? According to political analysts, the Democratic party’s continued support for the equal rights amendment may be attracting women voters, a majority of whom support this measure. At the same time, virtually all polling data indicate that women are substantially less likely than men to favor large defense budgets and military intervention overseas; these policies have become more associated with the Republican party of the 1980s than with the Democrats.

Politicians have begun to watch carefully the voting trends among women, since women voters could prove decisive in dose elections. The gender gap did appear to be a factor in the 1984 elections—though not as significant a factor as some observers had expected. According to a poll by ABC News, men supported President Ronald Reagan’s successful bid for reelection by a margin of 63 to 36 percent. By contrast, 56 percent of women voted for Reagan while 44 percent supported the Democratic ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. In the 1986 elections, the ender gap narrowed somewhat, yet apparently contributed to the victories of Democratic senatorial candidates in at least nine states, four of them in the south. For example, in Colorado, men supported Republican Ken Kramer over Democrat Timothy Wirth by a 49 to 48 percent margin, yet Wirth was elected because women preferred him by a 53 to 44 percent margin. By contributing to these Democratic victories, women voters were an important factor in the party’s 1986 takeover of e Senate.

Interest Groups

This discussion of political behavior has focused primarily on individual participation (and non-participation) in the decision-making processes of government and on involvement in the nation’s political parties. However, there are other important ways that American citizens can play a role in the nation’s political arena. Because of common needs or common frustrations, people may band together in social movements such as the civil rights movement of the 1960s or the anti-nuclear power movement of the 1980s. Americans can also influence the political process through membership in interest groups (some of which, in fact, may be part of larger social movements).

An interest group is a voluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence public policy. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is considered an interest group, so, too, are the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Such groups are a vital part of the American political process Many interest groups (often known as lobbies) are national in scope and address a wide variety of political and social issues As we saw earlier, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause, the American Conservative Union, and Christian Voice were all actively involved in the debate over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.

Typically, we think of interest groups as being primarily concerned with regulatory legislation However, as political scientist Barbara Ann Stolz (1981) points out, even the federal criminal code has become a target for interest-group activity Business groups have sought to strike the “reckless endangerment” provision that, in effect, makes it a crime for a business to engage knowingly in conduct that will imperil someone’s life Business interests have also attempted to broaden the criminal code to include certain types of incidents that occur during labor disputes, unions, by contrast, wish to maintain current laws.

Interest groups often pursue their political goals through lobbying—the process by which individuals and groups communicate with public officials in order to influence decisions of government. They also distribute persuasive literature and launch publicity campaigns to build grass roots support for their political objectives Finally, interest groups, through their political action committees, donate funds to political candidates whose views are in line with the groups’ legislative agendas.

The role of interest groups within the American political system has generated intense controversy, particularly because of the special relation ships that exist between government officials and lobbyists for interest groups The widespread nature of these ties is evident from the number of former legislators who, after retiring or losing bids for reelection, immediately go on the payroll of interest groups In 1985, there were 300 former lawmakers and former high-level White House officials parlaying their governmental experience into profitable new careers as Washington lawyers, lobbyists, consultants, and administrators So pervasive is this network of insiders that an organization. Former Members of Congress, links them together Currently, there are no laws preventing members of Congress from returning as lobbyists to reshape (or even dismantle) legislation that they created in the public interest.

Interest groups are occasionally referred to as pressure groups, implying that they attempt to force their will on a resistant public In the view of functionalists, such groups play a constructive role in decision making by allowing orderly expression of public opinion and by increasing political participation They also provide legislators with a useful flow of information

Conflict theorists stress that although a very few organizations work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, most American interest groups represent affluent white professionals and business leaders From a conflict perspective, the overwhelming political clout of these powerful lobbies discourages participation by the individual citizen and raises serious questions about who actually rules a supposedly democratic nation.

MODELS OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES

Who really holds power in the United States’ Do “we the people” genuinely run the country through elected representatives? Or is there small elite of Americans that governs behind the scenes? It is difficult to determine the location of power in a society as complex as the Unite States In exploring this critical question, social scientists have developed two basic views of our nation’s power structure the elite and pluralism models.

Elite Model

Karl Marx essentially believed that nineteenth century representative democracy was a shape.

He argued that industrial societies were dominated by relatively small numbers of people who owned factories and controlled natural resources In Marx’s view, government officials and military leaders were essentially servants of the capitalist class and followed their wishes therefore, any key decisions made by politicians inevitably reflected the interests of the dominant bourgeoisie Like others who hold an elite model of power relations, Marx thus believed that society is ruled by a small group of individuals who share a common set of political and economic interests.

The Power Elite. In his pioneering work. The Power Elite, sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of a small ruling elite of military, industrial, and governmental leaders who controlled the fate of the United States. Power rested in the hands of a few, both inside and outside of government—the power elite. In Mill’s words:

The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women, they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. … They arc in command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society.

In Mills’s model, the power structure of the United States can be illustrated by the use of a pyramid. At the top are the corporate rich, leaders of the executive branch of government, and heads of the military (whom Kills called the “warlords”). Below this triumvirate are local opinion leaders, members of the legislative branch of government, and leaders of special-interest groups. Mills contended that such individuals and groups would basically follow the wishes of the dominant power elite. At the bottom of society are the unorganized, exploited masses.

This power elite model is, in many respects, similar to the work of Karl Marx. The most striking difference is that Mills felt that the economically powerful coordinate their maneuvers with the military and political establishments in order to serve their mutual interests. Yet, reminiscent of Marx. Mills argued that the corporate rich were perhaps the most powerful element of the power elite (first among “equals”). And, of course, there is a further dramatic parallel between the work of these conflict theorists The powerless masses at the bottom of Mills’s power elite model certainly bring to mind Marx’s portrait of the oppressed workers of the world, who have “nothing to lose but their chains”.

Mills failed to provide detailed case studies which would substantiate the interrelationship among members of the power elite. Instead, he suggested that such foreign policy decisions as America’s entry into the Korean war reflected a determination by business and military leaders that each could benefit from such armed conflict. In Mills s view, such a sharing of perspectives was facilitated by the frequent interchange of commanding roles among the elite. For example, a banker might become the leader of a federal regulatory commission overseeing financial institutions, and a retired general might move to an executive position with a major defense contracting firm.

A fundamental element in Mills’s thesis is that the power elite not only has relatively few members but also operates as a self-conscious, cohesive unit. Although not necessarily diabolical or ruthless, the elite comprises similar types of people who regularly interact with one another and have essentially the same political and economic interests. Mills’s power elite is not a conspiracy but rather a community of interest and sentiment among a small number of influential Americans.

Admittedly, Mills failed to clarify when the elite acts and when it tolerates protests. Nevertheless, his challenging theories forced scholars to look more critically at the “democratic” political system of the United States.

The Ruling Class. Sociologist G. William Domhoff agreed with Mills that American society is run by a powerful elite. But, rather than fully accepting Mills’s power elite model, Domhoff argued that the United States is controlled by a social upper class “that is a ruling class by virtue of its dominant role in the economy and government”. This socially cohesive ruling class owns 20 to 25 percent of all privately held wealth and 45 to 50 percent of all privately held common stock.

Unlike Mills, Domhoff was quite specific about who belongs to this social upper class. Membership comes through being pan of a family recognized in The Social Register—the directory of the social elite in many American cities. Attendance at prestigious private schools and membership in exclusive social clubs are further indications that a person comes from America’s social upper class. Domhoff estimates that about 0.5 percent of the American population (or 1 of every 200 people) belongs to this social and political elite.

Of course, this would mean that the ruling class has more than 1 million members and could hardly achieve the cohesiveness that Mills attributed to the power elite. However, Domhoff adds that the social upper class as a whole does not rule the nation. Instead, members of this class who have assumed leadership roles within the corporate community or the nation’s policy-planning network join with high-level employees of profit-making and nonprofit institutions controlled by the social upper class to exercise power.

In Domhoff’s view, the ruling class should not be seen in a conspiratorial way, as “sinister men lurking behind the throne.” On the contrary they tend to hold public positions of authority. Almost all important appointive government posts— including those of diplomats and cabinet members—are filled by members of the social upper class. Domhoff contends that members of this class dominate powerful corporations, foundations, universities, and the executive branch of government. They control presidential nominations and the political party process through campaign contributions. In addition, the ruling class exerts a significant (though not absolute) influence within Congress and units of state and local government.

Perhaps the major difference between the elite models of Mills and Domhoff is that Mills insisted on the relative autonomy of the political elite and attached great significance to the independent power of the military. By contrast, Domhoff suggests that high-level government and military leaders serve the interests of the social upper class. Both theorists, in line with a Marxian approach, assume that the rich are interested only in what benefits them financially. Furthermore, as advocates of elite models of power. Mills and Domhoff argue that the masses of American people have no real influence on the decisions of the powerful.

One criticism of the elite model is that its advocates sometimes suggest that elites are always victorious. With this in mind, sociologist J. Alien Whitt (1982) examined the efforts of California’s business elites to support urban mass transit. He found that lobbying by these elites was successful in San Francisco but failed in Los Angeles. Whitt points out that opponents of policies backed by elites can mobilize to thwart their implementation.

Domhoff admits that the ruling class does not exercise total control over American society. However, he counters that this elite is able to set political terms under which other groups and classes must operate. Consequently, although the ruling class may lose on a particular issue, it will not allow serious challenges to laws which guarantee its economic privileges and political domination.

Pluralist Model

Several social scientists have questioned the elite models of power relations proposed by Marx, Mills, Domhoff, and other conflict theorists. Quite simply, the critics insist that power in the United States is more widely shared than the elite model indicates. In their view, a pluralist model more accurately describes the American political system. According to the pluralist model, “many conflicting groups within the community have access to government officials and compete with one another in an effort to influence policy decisions”.

Veto Groups. David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd suggested that the American political system could best be understood through examination of the power of veto groups. The term veto groups refers to interest groups that have the capacity to prevent the exercise of power by others. Functionally, they serve to increase political participation by preventing the concentration of political power. Examples cited by Riesman include farm groups, labor unions, professional associations, and racial and ethnic groups. Whereas Mills pointed to the dangers of rule by an undemocratic power elite, Riesman insisted that veto groups could effectively paralyze the nation’s political processes by blocking anyone from exercising needed leadership functions. In Riesman’s words, “The only leaders of national scope left in the United States are those who can placate the veto groups”.

Dahl’s Study of Pluralism. Community studies of power have also supported the pluralist model. One of the most famous—an investigation of decision making in New Haven, Connecticut—was reported by Robert Dahl in his book, Who Governs? (1961). Dahl found that while the number of people involved in any important decision was rather small, community power was nonetheless diffuse. Few political actors exercised decision-making power on all issues. Therefore, one individual or group might be influential in a battle over urban renewal but at the same time might have little impact over educational policy. Several other studies of local politics, in such communities as Chicago and Oberlin, Ohio, further document that monolithic power structures do not operate on the level of local government.

Just as the elite model has been challenged on political and methodological grounds, the pluralist model has been subjected to serious questioning. Domhoff (1978) reexamined Dahl’s study of decision making in New Haven and argued that Dahl and other pluralists had failed to trace how local elites prominent in decision making were part of a larger national ruling class. In addition, studies of community power, such as Dahl’s work in New Haven, can examine decision making only on issues which become pan of the political agenda. This focus fails to address the possible power of elites to keep certain matters entirely out of the realm of government debate. Conflict theorists contend that these elites will not allow any outcome of the political process which threatens their dominance. Indeed, they may even be strong enough to block discussion of such measures by policymakers.

Who Does Rule?

Without question, the pluralist and elite models have little in common. Each describes a dramatically different distribution of power, with sharply contrasting consequences for society. Is there any way that we can reconcile the vast disagreements in these two approaches?

Perhaps we can conclude that, despite their apparent points of incompatibility, each model offers an accurate picture of American political life. Power in various areas rests in the hands of a small number of citizens who are well-insulated from the will of the masses (elite view). Yet there are so many diverse issues and controversies in the nation’s political institutions that few individuals or groups consistently exercise power outside their distinctive spheres of influence (pluralist view). Even presidents of the United States have acknowledged that they felt more comfortable making decisions either in the area of foreign policy (Richard Nixon) or in the area of domestic policy (Lyndon Johnson). Moreover, the post-World War II period has seen increasing power vested in the federal government (elite model). But, even within the federal bureaucracy, there are a staggering number of agencies with differing ideas and interests (pluralist model).

We can end this discussion with the one common point of the elite and pluralist perspectives— power in the American political system is unequally distributed. All citizens may be equal in theory, yet those high in the nation’s power structure are “more equal.”

SUMMARY

Each society must have a political system in order to have recognized procedures for the allocation of valued resources—in Harold D. Lasswell’s terms, for deciding who gets what, when, and how. We have examined various types of political authority and forms of government and explores the dimensions of the American political system.

Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or even individuals in an intimate relationship. There are three basic sources of power within any political system — force, influence, and authority. Max Weber provided ( e of the most useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology by identifying three ideal types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. The United States, as a society which values the role of law, has legally defined limits on the power of government. In the 1980s, monarchies hold genuine governmental power in only a few nations of the world. Today, oligarchy often takes the form of military rule, although the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China can be described as oligarchies in which power rests in the hands of the ruling Communist party. Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski have identified six basic traits that typify totalitarianism: large-scale use of ideology, one-party systems, control of weapons, terror, control of the media, and control of the economy. The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing our laws. The principal institutions of political socialization m American society arc the family, schools, and media. Only a small minority of Americans actually participate in political organizations or in decision making on a local or national level.

11.  Women are becoming more successful at winning election to public office.

12.  An interest group a often national in scope and frequently addresses a wide variety of social and political issues.

13.  Advocates of the elite model of the American power structure see the nation as being ruled by a small group of individuals who share common political and economic interests, whereas advocates of a pluralist model believe that power is more widely shared among conflicting groups.

14.  Television is having a growing impact on American political campaigns.

KEY TERMS

Authority Power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by the people over whom it is exercised.

Charismatic authority Max Weber’s term for power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers.

Democracy In a literal sense, government by the people.

Dictatorship A government in which one person has nearly total power to make and enforce laws.

Dictatorship of the proletariat Marx’s term for the temporary rule by the working class during a stage between the successful proletarian revolution and the establishment of a classless communist society.

Elite model A view of society as ruled by a small group of individuals who share a common set of political and economic interests.

Force The actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will on others.

Influence The exercise of power through a process of persuasion.

Interest group A voluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence public policy.

Legal-rational authority Max Weber’s term for power made legitimate by law.

Legitimacy The belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to rule and that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that government.

Lobbying The process by which individuals and groups communicate with public officials in order to influence decisions of government.

Marital power A term used by Blood and Wolfe to describe the manner in which decision making is distributed within families.

Monarchy A form of government headed by a single member of a royal family, usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler.

Oligarchy A form of government in which a few individuals rule.

Pluralist model A view of society in which many conflicting groups within a community have access to governmental officials and compete with one another in an attempt to influence policy decisions.

Political action committee (PAC) A political committee established by a national bank, corporation, trade association, or cooperative or membership association to accept voluntary contributions for candidates or political parties.

Political efficacy The feeling that one has the ability to influence politicians and the political order.

Political party An organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for public office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on public issues, win elections, and exercise power.

Political socialization The process by which individuals acquire political attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior.

Political system A recognized set of procedures for implementing and obtaining the goals of a group.

Politics In Harold D. Lasswell’s words, “who gets what, when, how.”

Power The ability to exercise one’s will over others.

Power elite A term used by C. Wright Mills for a small group of military, industrial, and government leaders who control the fate of the United States.

Pressure groups A term sometimes used to refer to interest groups.

Representative democracy A form of government in which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.

Routinization of charismatic authority Max Weber’s term for the process by which the leadership qualities originally associated with an individual are incorporated into either a traditional or a legal-rational system of authority.

Terrorism The use or threat of violence against random or symbolic targets in pursuit of political aims.

Totalitarianism Virtually complete government control and surveillance over all aspects of social and political life in a society. (390)

Traditional authority Legitimate power conferred by custom and accepted practice.

Two-step flow of communication Elihu Katz’s term for a process through which a message is spread by the media to opinion leaders and is subsequently passedi along to the general public.

Veto groups David

Related Politics Articles
Question by Sonu: Politics ?
Has anyone suffered politics by co-workers at work place.
What happens to two of them at end of the day.

Best answer:

Answer by True Grits
What?

What do you think? Answer below!

Precisely 774 Local Governments exists today in Nigeria but it doubtful indeed if these local governments have lived up to expectations in the development of our country Nigeria. Three tier of government as inherited from the British have come under heavy criticisms from the citizens of Nigeria some of who are now angrily suggesting that the three tier of government be expunged from the nation’s system of government.

A new and sad dimension in the elections of officers into the third tier have just begun, and it would seem that this government at the local levels have inherited from its sisterly federal arm of government the art of selection of candidates and political officers into positions. What happened in Lagos State clearly points to the fact that who should rule in the grass root government was absolutely a decision to be determined by the ruling party or reigning state government. Firstly, the road to the said election of officers for the Local Government began with the handpicking of candidates with absence of any known criteria in the party membership of Action Congress (AC) Action Congress became a model in this business.

No primaries were held, yet party representatives emerged from the blues and honourably defeated all other contestants. Sadly again, we the electorates did not who the candidates whom we had the option of voting for but suddenly began to see posters all around the walls of Lagos, funnily after first sets of posters of campaigners have been seen. We therefore began to wonder who the legitimate candidates of Action Congress were. It amount to the 8th wonder of the modern world if the results of the elections held is pointing to the fact that every of the candidates of Action Congress were acceptable to the generality of Lagosians and in all the localities not minding whether these candidates were known or not.

In the end announcements were made that Action Congress had swept councillorship and chairmanship positions available in the state. The pressmen who were at the event to cover this report and probably the Attorney General of the Federation can tell us more on the event. What this portends for democracy at the grass roots is better imagined than explained here for we all know perfectly well that Lagos serves as a model for all the states of the federation and an idea of emergence of candidates without primaries and candidates of any particular political party winning every available positions could be emulated much to our chagrin.

This brings us to the question of the relevance of the Local Government in Nigeria, time may not permit to delve into its functions as provided for by the constitution of the nation but the sincere ones among us can definitely tell that not one of any Local Government in existence in the country today can boast of making wholesome achievements in this regard. At best, the best vibrant Local Government Area in Lagos is set at seeking every means of extracting the residents of the state in the name of taxation without ever giving back to them.

Once caught on any road as a motorist in the state, what the very first information issued to you is go pay this form of tax for three years and come back for discussions pertaining to your vehicle, the main reason you have been nabbed right or wrong. One is also expected to pay tax even for the air he breaths in Lagos but the question is what do we get back from the Local Governments?

The status of certain settlements in the state are even confusing, for Festac and Satellite town made to sit under two different Local Governments in the state, analysts have the time have wondered whether Festac town posses Federal, State or Local Government status such that should warrant the payment of tenement rates, market rates and other forms of taxes. There are no cemeteries to repair or take care in the town to take care of, no provision of drinkable water, lights are not provided by either the state or the Local Governments yet the people are forcefully put under the oath of tax payment. No single court exists at the local level in the town. The maintenance of the Estate is not carried out by either the federal, state or Local Government yet the headquarters of the Amuwo Odofin Local Government is located in the town.

The Estate has some of the most deplorable roads in Lagos which now cannot be accessed during rainy seasons yet we are told we are under local government and need to pay our tenement rates and ground rents. This situation is very appalling to the residents of the Estate.

Local Governments have been described as money sharing ventures with no feasible purpose to carry out with nothing to show as there are lapses in administration worsened by lack of checks and balances. Many people in the country do not even know the counselors and chairpersons representing them, which is terrible.

The Federal Government should begin to take closer looks on this government at the grass roots and ensure that people at the rural areas benefit immensely with water, roads and other facilities, stringent efforts should also be made to articulate new and better means of carrying out elections at this level to effectively distribute fairness and equity to all the parties involved. Only these will answer whether the operation of Local Governments should be retained in the country. 

The Prime Minister, his wife and advisor discuss how to bring better democracy to local government! Hilarious political comedy from the classic BBC tv series.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Question by jerico rey: local government?
the importance of local government in the Philippines

Best answer:

Answer by BIG D
To whom?

Add your own answer in the comments!