April twenty. Political Science
No class on May eleventh. Video next Tuesday. I will
not cancel the interfaces; however, because -- and the
reading there because although I won't test on it, the
interfaces are ten points anyway and the reading are good
it's a good chapter. So, um, that's probably how we'll make
up for it. Okay? And that's one of the reasons I put it at
the end because it's not extremely vital to the general
political science course. I think that's what you were
going to ask about, yeah, because it's interface six is due
on -- so that will be due on May fourth. Sounds about
right. Yeah. Okay did you pick that you, um, then interface
six we're going to put off until May fourth. Seven is due
on the sixth of May? That would be the thirtieth? And then
the one that I just put off till the thirtieth should really
be due on the eighth? Let's remind other students later.
The dates for the up coming interfaces. Interface six is
due May fourth. Interface seven is due May 13th and
interface eight, May 18th. Got it? Any questions then on
that? The exam will be the same time. However I will give
you three other times you can take the exam if you want to
because you can take it with any one of my other classes at
that point. Any other questions that any of you have
besides how the hell did the air-conditioning go on? At
least some of you are wearing sweaters.
All right. We were talking about the two party system.
We mentioned Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum and then went into
the differences between the two parties. Right? With some
jokes which weren't funny but attempted to identify some of
the things that make the parties different. Then we talked
a little bit about third parties at all? I can't remember,
I did? I talked about the American party and -- I mean the
Know Nothing Party? Did I? Yes? No? Can't remember.
What about the Anti-Mason party? I didn't remember that
that's why I was sitting there. I may have defined third
parties. Okay.
So let's talk a little about third parties starting out
today wherever I was last time. We'll come back to it. If
you recall, I defined third parties as parties that seldom
if ever win an election and mentioned of course the Green
Party winning in Oakland. For the first time ever. Now the
Green Party, you know, isn't an ideological party based on
the stale of most European parties or most nations political
nations have a real solid ideology. There are parties that
are a little strange shall we say. Most of them are very
small. They may have two or three members. Some get large
and when I say strange is because they got strange
philosophies. One of those I may have discussed previously
is the Natural Law Party. Did I talk about the Natural Law
at all in this class? I have a little in other classes.
It's on the ballot as of 1996 in California. The Natural
Law is on the ballot in 22 states so it's not an obscure
party. They have recently offered to send 7,000 according
to Time magazine, of their members to Kossovo and to Albania
to reduce the stress of the refugees by doing what they do
best. Transcendental meditation. Their whole philosophy is
built through transcendental meditation which is basically
philosophy that developed around the 1970s. Where it was
believed that you could solve all the world's problems by
teaching people to be mellow through meditation. And I have
tried meditation. It makes me mellow, puts me right to
sleep within a few seconds. And I supposed much of the
world's problems would be resolved if everyone slept.
Actually meditation does slow down pulse rates, does reduce
blood pressure. I'm not really putting you down, I'm just
making it -- I am putting you down personally unfairly as a
philosophy for treating all of world's problems from
inflation to drugs which of course is the basis of their
resolution. They really do believe that you can reduce
crime by teaching criminals meditation, that you can get
people off drugs through meditation. It may be you could
get some -- don't get me wrong, I do think it would work for
some, but I don't know how successful it would be as an
overall philosophy. But it is a strange philosophy to have
such an active organization. They have in the last few
years avoided mentioning transcendental meditation in their
literature. But when you read on their web site or
elsewhere you pick up on their meditation very easily.
We've had lots of parties like that there were two of my
favorite in the 1850s. I guess the 1850s was a perfect time
when there was a search for political parties because a lot
of third parties developed. One of them was a party that
received the name the Know Nothings. Because any time they
were asked, they would respond. I Know Nothing. They
actually ran for a while a former presidential -- a
president who actually became president because Zachary
Taylor died of a heart attack in office when he was up for
re-election, his party did not nominate him again because he
was so bland and such a Know Nothing that they decided it
wasn't worth it. His name is probably the least known
exempt maybe in San Francisco. Millard Fillmore. And
perhaps he's known is because of the Fillmore district.
It's funny, I have a list of various sports that president's
participated in and when you see Millard Fillmore, the sport
listed is nothing. Which sort of identifies him, I think,
in everything that he did.
The other political party that was sort of interesting
at that period of time was the Masons. I'm sorry, the
Anti-Masons. The Masons are still here. Free masonry was
in many places seen as sort of a left wing movement before
communism. It was seen as a revolutionary movement
dangerous to the establishment. Most of our founders of our
country were Masons. Making them definitely dangerous. It
was sort of at communist conspiracy theory of its day.
Masonry in the 1850s was here in Fremont. We had five
different districts and in Centerville they have a Masonic
lodge which has two lodges because in the 1850s it split
into two lodges and they still exist. It's above the indian
theater. On Centerville which is on -- I'm sorry that's on
Mission, and on Fremont and -- right there near that
corner. It's right over above it. It's interesting. Of
course most of us here is familiar with the Masonic home.
It's a beautiful brick structure. If you haven't, it's
worth taking trip down Mission Boulevard. Drive down
Mission Boulevard as you enter Union city on your right it's
got this brick structure. It's really beautiful in a lot of
ways because you don't see much brick in California.
Because of earth quakes. I'm amazed that this build you
know survivors. It was built right after the 1906
earthquake. I guess nothing so far knocked it down. I
understand there are many other buildings behind it. It
looks hike an insane asylum. But it's a retirement home for
retired Masons.
The Masons are a service organization basically today.
It's a secret fraternal organization that is sort of
ecumenical, all encompassing. Because it's all a general
sense for all people. And in fact in the 1870s, the Pope
actually condemned free Masonry because it was ecumenical
and condemned Catholics for joining it at the expense of
excommunication. But different religions do belong. In fact,
it's interesting to me only -- well I guess I just didn't
anticipate it.
My parents are buried in books sort of -- on a
bookshelf. It's really interesting because they're cremated
in an urn in the shape of books. It's like a book and
they're up on the shelf and this is in a cemetery which is
basically a Jewish cemetery over in Colma. And I think
there's something to be said for being buried in a book.
Makes a lot more sense to me a lot of burials, I think. But
I was looking through them and some of books actually that
are there, um, and they're bronze or whatever -- what do
they make them out of? Bronze. Have the Masons signs on
them. So obviously Jews can be Masons as well.
One of the more interesting speeches I heard and many of
you Farakon, the head of the black Muslims. Wasn't he the
one behind the whole Million Man March? Apparently he's got
a severe case of prostate cancer. But many of his speeches
are very -- I'll say -- even though he might and his
followers that is hate filled. But one of the speeches he
made was that blacks can reach 360 degrees. They can go a
full circle. Where whites can only reach 32 agrees and what
he was referring to was the level of masonry which goes 32
degrees only. So it was very interesting in the way of the
black with the Masons and the white race in it. In that
talk. I gave a speech to the Masons many years ago at that
Masonic lodge down at the indian theater there. That went
through a lot of different theaters because until it finally
was taken over and it has done pretty well. But indias
makes more movies in the United States. It's a big
industry. It is. They're behind the titles. I don't think
so. No? They're like our soap operas. The special
effects. I've watched a few. I mean most of them are done
in indian and I don't understand them, but without subtitles
with subtitles. But I don't know, to me they were just soap
opera the ones that I saw. Although some of indian
directors have done some really outstanding work and
received the academy awards. What's the most famous one was
Ray -- in any case. I think that's partially with the
expansion of indian population in that -- the reason it
survived after going under. That's off the subject.
In any case, the room that I had to give the talk in was
about four times as big as this and people sat around the
edges and it was like an auditorium type of thing and I had
to talk to four corners and the back were the -- and it was
square, not circular. They brought in the people from the
retirement home and I was paid $32 for the talk. $1 for each
free of masonry. I thought it was sort of the interesting.
But it was also interesting because after the talk, this
little old lady came over to me and she said, "That's the
greatest talk I've ever heard." And I said, "Well, thank
you." "What did you say?" she said, "Oh, please
speak up
louder. I'm hard of hearing." All right. You know.
That's why she liked my talk so much. I've always decided
that it's not so much what you say, it's how you present it.
And it's too bad they've got an interpreter. If they didn't
have to look at the words and looked at me and looked at
what I was saying.
In any case, the mason, anti Masons believed that
Masons were going around killing young children and drinking
their blood, Christian children, as part of their ritual and
at the wanted to get all Masons out of the country and put
them in prison and it was a fairly large political party.
It was sort of like many what we would call our right wing
political parties that want to return to the old ways and
return to -- it was very much a Biblical party in it's own
production.
Times changing created another sort of religious moral
party in the 1850s that is interesting. It was formed in
1854. I think I mentioned this in class. It was the
republican party. Did I mention the republican party last
time was formed in 1854? No? Yes? Yeah, I did. I
mentioned who the first republican candidate for president
was in 1856? No? That one you wouldn't forget I don't
think. The first candidate the republicans ran for
president in 1856 -- and if I didn't live in this area I
probably wouldn't mention it -- was John C. Fremont.
However, he lost. The first candidate for the republicans
at one election I think you know and that was Abe Lincoln.
Lincoln won the election in 1860. And he set off a
republican dynasty. GOP, the grand old party since it was
the youngest of the two parties came into existence as the
major party in the United States for many years actually.
Although the democrats won some re elections from time to
time the republicans dominated landscape in politics from
1860 until 1932.
In 1932 we had what is often referred to as a
realignment election. Realignment elections are where
people who traditionally vote for one party switched
permanently to the other party. Or people who vote for one
party switched permanently to the other party and with the
depression and Franklin Roosevelt the dominated until the
1980 election. In 1980 he had somewhat of a realignment
election again and many groups who had voted democrat now
voted republican. However, it was until -- and who of
course ran for president in 1980? Reagon, but it wasn't
until 1994 that the republican party really became the
dominant party in Congress by winning both the House and the
Senate. 1994.
In 1994, under Newt Gingrich leadership the republicans
took over the House. They had control of the Senate and
that was the first time since 1956 when Dwight Eisenhower
was president. The republicans still however are not the
dominant party number wise in the country. There are still
more people registering democrat then republican. However
it is close. It stands about 38 percent to about 36
percent. Democrat registering versus republican
registering. Obviously that doesn't add up to fifty
percent; why? I mean a hundred percent; why? Because
there's people who claim other parties. People who claim
other parties or don't claim anything at all. They're
independent. Exactly. Now interestingly that is a dramatic
change in 1968 despite Nixon's victory to the presidency,
the registration for democrats versus republicans were
claimed go to be 44 claim to be democrats in 1968. We're
only 20 percent claim to be republicans. Many people felt
the republican party was passay, that we were entering a
single party system and they began to write about it. By
1998, '99, we have a true two party system with lots of
people registering for both parties. However, once again,
there have been some dramatic change that make it a little
different in analyzing the political parties. The urban
landscape cities are still predominantly democracy but not
as dramatic. Rural areas are still predominantly
republican. The big change perhaps has been Suburbia. While
registering democrat still votes republican. Even more so
than before. Why do they register democrat at times or
closely it's because of their primary group. Their
families.
I defined primary, secondary and -- primarily groups
tend to influence them. Many relatives, family, their
parents came out of the industries and they were registered
democrats. Working class men had traditionally since 1932
registered democrat. More and more of the working class
union people are voting republican. Translation; we're
about sixty to seventy percent of the working class men used
to vote democrat. Today it is probably sitting at about 45
percent of those men voting democrat. What a change.
Obviously the -- well these men, businessmen, voted
republican consistently. However, working class women are
voting democrat in more numbers than ever before. We talked
a little about that did we not? Yeah. Hispanics who used
to be overwhelmingly democrat ninety, 95 percent are now
voting almost fifty percent for republican. Now that is a
dramatic change. Part of it is that the republican party
has been able in some areas which are heavily Hispanic to
vote to pull in Hispanic.
One of that area is Texas. George Bush the third with
his appeal to the Hispanic vote and speaking Spanish has had
a tremendous impact on it. In Florida his brother Jeb Bush
who is married to a Hispanic woman has definitely appeal but
in Florida to the big Hispanic population is from where?
Cuba. Very heavy Hispanic population. The reason they tend
to vote republican is that they have identified the
democratic party as being too friendly to Castro. So they
seem to think for some reason that the republican has been
more favorable to their anti Castro propaganda, if you will,
or policies. So that that's an interesting kind of change.
Obviously many of the Mexican Americans who come into this
country are working class and they do tend to stay with the
democratic party. I'm talking of course the legal
immigrants. Yet many of the individuals out of the area
have escaped what they felt was Marxists and in that kind of
a case they stayed also to the republican party. The more
wealthy Latinos are usually wealthier because they're in the
technological -- and because of that they are identifying
more with the party at wealth quote un quote the republican
party.
In fact, that's got a lot to say with a lot of
immigration that has come here recently. Immigrants would
generally be about 75 percent to eighty percent democrats
once they became citizens. That's not the case anymore
because a large percentage of our immigrant population have
come here from societies that are technologically more
advanced -- I'm sorry. They come here to take jobs in
technology. The Indian population, the Pakistan population,
Russian population, the Irish population. But on the east
coast there is a very new heavily Irish and these are people
that are highly trained. You don't hear about it here. We
have the high Indian population. We do have the very high
you know Chinese. Which is different that came to build the
railroads because this is high tech and Mandarin rather than
Cantonese and that makes a difference. In fact there's some
conflicts with language and -- I'm sorry. Cantonese rather
than Mandarin. I correct myself before she got me. More
Mandarin than Cantonese. So I was right the first time.
I'll get. She just said the Mandarin. Yeah it's at
Mandarin population. Where Hong Kong is Cantonese. And
again people are coming from Hong Kong the numbers are
nowhere near the people who were coming out of Taiwan and
some of the southern parts of China today who were
technologically skilled. Those groups are supporting the
republican party. Okay?
In registration when they become citizens and in voting
which is different than the earlier immigration groups.
Again, remember I've made a generalization. It is not
anywhere near one hundred percent okay? Don't forget that I
don't imply everybody in there. And more recently perhaps
in California because of the democratic parties emphasis on
education, the last two years there actually has been a
change in the attitudes of some of the immigration groups.
It's made a big difference. It really has compared to four
years ago. In the registration and in the voting. And I
just a lot of this too, you know, going into the elementary
schools. How do you judge where people's registrations
are? And you know it's an unfair survey, but the teachers
usually ask in presidential elections who the kids are going
to vote for first, second, and third grade, but they tell
you and you can see by this you know by the results where
they're voting based on what their parents are voting and
the numbers were extremely overwhelmingly against Clinton in
1992 in the Fremont schools. That was not the case in 96.
Which was interesting.
There was a change in California in the elementary
school although again in Fremont again remember it is
basically suburban. So it's not San Francisco where you
have a different kind of Russian population and Chinese
population because many of the Chinese that are coming into
San Francisco are actually quote un quote the working class
Chinese still. The Russians coming into San Francisco are
not coming in with skills because when they come in with
those skills they're in Silicon valley. Let me tell you
right away. We had a young lady fresh out of Russia. She's
a seventh grader come into the chess tournament. Parents
were pulling out a hundred buck bills to pay. Fresh
immigration. They're living in Walnut Creek. They're
working in Silicon Valley. They come here and of course
making six figure jobs immediately. I'm jealous because
okay I'll accept it. So with those kinds of differences are
you know are the kind of things that's changed the
representation.
Who stays with the democrats? African Americans.
Dramatically. Ninety percent at least. The republican
party despite attempts have made little into the African
American population. They keep trying. We have to remember
is that that's been a change since 1932. Previously to
that, African Americans voted republican; why? Because the
republican party was the party of Lincoln and ended slavery.
But in 1932 the emphasis on the democratic party social
programs and later on integration it was Franklin Roosevelt
who got in touch with the Mayor of New York and insisted
that the union -- busted and that they force the
construction of the George Washington bridge that they allow
African Americans to work in the Union. Those kinds of
issues made a difference and of curse it was Harry Truman
who in 1938 integrated the military. So those kinds of
things have kept the African American population in the
democratic party. Granted, the best known African American
politician outside of Jessie Jackson is not a politician, I
suppose, is Colon Powell, and he is a republican. But we do
understand one thing about him. His family was not born in
the United States. He was Jamaican. His family in Jamaica
and they are the new immigration class and that's what I was
referring to.
Jews, despite the fact that many people see Jews as
wealthy, and there are wealthy Jews, don't get me wrong the
fact is that they have remained with the democratic party
although where it was once ninety percent it's probably now
at 65 or seventy percent. Why? Because there is in the
Jewish prayer and liturgy is a constant social message to
take care of other people. It is part of the literature of
almost every Jewish prayer ceremony and that sense of taking
care of others and social element predominates over their
business interests and so I think that explains part of
that, um, tradition staying with them.
The democratic party, by the way, has not been recently
as strong in support -- and that's going to hurt Gore.
Clinton and Hillary have made some very negative comments
with Israel and yet of course that is considered a negative
in New York -- state, considering the heavy Jewish
population. If she is to beside to run for senator so far
it's been quiet -- in fact nothing's been said about her
there was a big push for a while again an answer we haven't
heard anything. So I don't know.
As I should indicate, one of the things that has changed
dramatically is the fact that despite groups that we've
mentioned -- oh, senior citizen stay with the democrats in
many cases because they have supported social security and
because of course traditional working class. Most people
today vote in a much more independent pattern. So despite
groups stay with a political party we cross party lines.
More readily. Years back when I lived in New York and I
left New York about 1968, you had voting booths which you
don't have very often out here and you go in and you have
the levers for the various candidates. Republican democrat
whatever the other parties would be. There is a
conservative in New York, the liberal party and there was a
lever that allowed you to pull down all the levers for that
party. If you want to vote all the candidates of that
democrats, you pull that lever.
I didn't tell you that last time or mention it? And
years ago when you go into the booth people go in and they'd
be out indicating that they pulled the lever for everybody
in the party. That's not the case anymore. Even if people
are to vote for every member of that political party running
for office, we refuse actually to just pull the one lever.
We feel guilty about it. We pull them individually and
that's perhaps a much healthier approach, but not
necessarily in some people's views parts the ability of the
political parties today to function to get things
accomplished. Everyone factor in fact some people is that
because the parties aren't as strong as they used to be and
don't feel that sense of loyalty to the political parties
that we have had the kind of grid lock where things aren't
getting down because people aren't talking any positions
almost.
In the 19th century, political parties -- in New York
all bars are closed on election day. As well is the liquor
stores because in the 19th century people would get drunk
and come out shooting people from the other party. It was
that heavy an issue. I mean, you know we just can't
visualize. It would be very difficult for us to understand
today somebody at election day going to a booth and getting
in a fight with somebody from a different party. It just
doesn't happen. Anywhere, I think, just about in this
country, as it did years ago. Because the parties dominated
the landscape right through you to some extent to the
1960s. I had an article that I lost -- I'm still pissed
that I lost it. I don't know where it went to -- that was
written in the 1960s. I lived in Long Island and went to
college out there. One of the college I went to was -- and
I had a friend of mind there who had just moved while I was
in college from Brooklyn, New York to out on Long Island,
and his father had opened a business there. He had a small
business in Brooklyn and I moved it out. Suffolk county is
predominantly republican. The city of New York and
controlled by the democrats and in those days by the
democratically machine. Suffolk county was republican.
When he moved out there this is not the article I'll get to
the article -- when he moved out there he registered
democrat part of his immigrant background and fact that he
was Jewish and he couldn't get his license, they weren't
picking up the garbage. When he finally got the license and
he finally he was told by somebody "look, the only way
you're going to get things down fast is change your
registration to republican." once he did, once he changed
his registration republican, everything sped up.
Instantaneous. They new and they and that's they controlled
the area there's no way to described what is often referred
to as Ward politics.
The political bosses dominated the landscapes of these
communities and of these cities. The article I was
referring to that I don't have was in Suffolk county. A
number of African Americans were talking to the republican
leader -- by the way the political republican or democratic
leaders were never elected official they were the party
bosses. They got paid. They never held office. They were
behind the scenes sort of like the God Father, they were the
ones that you came to and you begged to get things done and
you gave them presents. I think I may have told you about
my experience in Mexico when I met the political bosses in a
room that was twice this size and everybody had to give him
gifts this was the kind of political bosses they had in all
parts of the country. More on the east coast than the west
coast granted and middle America. The political boss the
African Americans were complaining about the fact that they
couldn't get anything and the boss said in the paper quote
it directly he said, "Look, when you blacks stop voting for
democrats and start registering and voting for republicans
we'll give something to you, but until you do, you're not
worth it to us." He was as direct as you can be. Hard to
believe and that was quote in the paper. I mean an honest
statement because that's the way it was. And by the way,
the political bosses had no tendency in saying things like
that because that's how they controlled it.
In the 19th century everything was done by the political
parties. Well there was no government to take care of your
health and with welfare. That didn't come in until the
'30s. So if you got lost a job, it was the political party
who got the charity to bring you food, clothing and if
possible get you another job. And if you worked hard for
the party not just voted for the party you registered if you
worked hard for the party they could guarantee you a
government job because as Andrew Jackson said "to the victor
goes the spoils" and what that meant was once the party got
elected they could give out the jobs. In government which
were usually fairly good well paying jobs. The party not
only took care of charity they took care of the senior
citizens. They made sure they got to the polls. They gave
them food because there was no retirement, no social
security. When you were done with work until you put money
away that's it folks you didn't have any. And that's what
-- you know, why a lot of people died right upon quitting
work. There was nothing to take care of them except for the
political party. The political party ran the social, the
party hall, the party meeting places where people got
together. Had parties. You know, the backyard and the
fields that they partied controlled they ran the fourth of
July picnics. The party was the center of social activity.
Community activity. There were no unions to speak of.
The first break in political party power and strength
came in the 1880s. In 1880 when the president of the -- was
assassinated. His name was -- nobody remembers? Hint?
Named after a cat. Garfield. The person who assassinated
him is often described in the history books as a disgruntled
office seeker. He had worked for Garfield and expected to
get a government post. When he didn't, he killed him. In
1883, concerned about this spoil system, congress passed the
Pendelton Civil Service Act. In 1883 congress passed the
Pendelton Civil Service Act. What was it? Well in simple
terms it created the civil service. What is the civil
service? It's your government employee's you had to now
take a test. It doesn't matter what party you were a member
of. What mattered is how you placed on the test for your
political appointment. It was no longer political in the
full sense of the word. And not only did the federal
government pass it, states did pass similar exams as well.
And so up until a number of years back when the government
began to expand positioning almost every post state and
federal required to take an exam. There are many posts
again today which are patronage posts that are appointed by
the party leaders.
The president has about ten thousand posts that he can
appoint himself. The governor of California can appoint
over two thousand people by himself without approval. I
know this in part because my brother was for a while a
political lacky. Translation; appointee. In 1980 he got an
appointment as a manager in a federal cooperative bank
appointed through Jimmy Carter. However, the democrats lost
the election in 1980, and the republicans took over in 1981
and he had to resign. Because the republicans want to put
their own people there so he came back to California and
received an appointment. A political appointment by
governor Jerry Brown in 1981 to Cal Trans. Damn good salary
for the time. Government jobs often pay quite well.
However, the democrats lost in 1982 and when Dukmajen took
office in 1983 he demanded that all those political
appointments hand in many of resignation. Over two thousand
people resigned so that he could appoint republicans to
those posts. My brother was one of those. At that point my
brother decided to go into private business as a
consultant. He had had it working in government and
government appointments.
The 1930s also weakened dramatically the roll of the
parties. In the 1930s the New Deal introduced health and
welfare programs. The government now took care of social
security, unemployment insurance, the parties didn't have
therefore as much support because they weren't providing as
much. Also in 1936, the government recognized the right of
people to organize into unions. Giving people the right to
organize into unions meant that unions now began to dominate
the landscaping along with political party. The unions now
negotiate for those health benefits and also they made --
they themselves took care of benefits through their funds.
There was a whole sting awhile banning about the teamsters
and what the hell was the fun that they were -- money from?
One of retirement funds but also the unions began to run the
parties. The fourth of July big ones because they now had
people gather at the union hall like the hall in Fremont
here on Fremont boulevard. They became centers of
activity.
However it was in the lay '60s and early '70s that
basically the political parties became almost meaningless in
the American landscaped. Not fully. In 1968, we were
heavily into a war which wasn't really war, but it was a war
called Vietnam war. A Lot of young people and a lot of
other Americans including many political candidates began to
believe that the union states was wrong and should not be
there and should get the hell out. And a man name Eugene
McCarthy -- he was -- he won. He didn't win, but he came
in second in New Hampshire and Johnson decided not to run
again. He dropped out of the race. Johnson had wanted for
president. At that point because Eugene -- Robert Kennedy
entered the race as an anti war candidate and it looked like
Kennedy was going to get the nomination until he was
assassinated -- until June of 1968. He had won a number of
primaries, however, his people were not seated at the
democratic convention that was held in Chicago. The people
who were anti war were not allowed to speak.
Mayor Daly who was the boss of Chicago was running
the convention and we had in the streets of Chicago a riot.
Violence broke out by the presses as well as by the people.
It was called the police riot by many books. The democratic
party realized when it lost the election overwhelmingly to
somebody who should have never won it Nixon that they needed
to bring people back to the party and so they created
reforms and they filed suit in some of the reforms in
attempting to bring in diversity, young people, women,
blacks, Hispanics into places of party leadership. They
actually created quotas demanding that many party positions
be held by a percentage of the people based on the
percentage in the population. These were called the
McGovern, named after George McGovern, who in 1972 took
advantage of them to become the democratic nominee against
Nixon. The reforms become fired. The groups that came in
had their own narrow agenda. Translation; the political
party had been all encompassing to all people. It tried to
balance out all issues and compromise and work them out as
we do in democracy. These groups came in and were only
concerned about certain issues and really wouldn't
compromise. They had their own narrow agendas, but that's
not what -- the fact that by killing -- getting rid of the
party bosses they got rid of the people who new how to raise
funds and recollection. The new people didn't have the
experiences or vested interest. They didn't know how to get
people out to vote. There's no way to describe the way a
party boss and a party man new how to -- I would not even be
able to understand it fully if I had not been a poll watcher
in 1965 in a heavily hall district of New York lower east
side. Taminay hall was the party bosses of New York still
in '65 it was a primary. And I was to be a poll watcher
down in a district that was dominated to make sure that dead
people and others didn't vote who were not supposed to. And
I go down there and I, know you standing around with a list
of names and this guys who's a counter party -- looks at me
and says how much you getting paid and I said I'm not. I'm
volunteering and he said what are you some kind of schmuck?
You're not getting any money for this? Everybody there was
getting paid by the party. He was getting about a hundred
bucks a day which is not bad money those days. They paid
him well to be there to help. But that wasn't the issue.
The real kicker was watching what the party, you know, you
always cross off names of people who vote and near the end
of the day when they saw who had voted and who hadn't, they
began to send out the taxicab drivers. The taxicab drivers
went and picked up the people that hadn't voted. They went
to their houses. They knocked on their doors. They tracked
them down. They began to bring in people. Cab drivers
themselves. And in some cases they brought them in in their
night gowns -- which was interesting -- their pajamas and
they carried one woman in on a stretcher brought her in list
here into the booth and all of these people had a little
card which told them which lever to pull. That was the kind
of organization of the parties. It was amazing. I was.
When I saw, you know, before the polls closed, I said if we
get any votes here it will be a miracle. We did get two
votes out of three hundred. Perhaps. Maybe three. And I
the only reason I figure we got three was in this
democratically primarily because people were too tired and
pulled the wrong lever or were pissed off because everybody
knew everybody. I was the only stranger in the group. Very
interesting process.
Of course that hall process as I say by 1968 was broken
down with these McGovern reforms. But they came between
1972 and '75 with campaign funding reform. With campaign
funding reform. A number of campaign funding reforms you
were introduced one of them was the matching fund for
presidential election. It was considered that if we could
get the U.S. Government to pay for the campaigns there will
be less vested interest. Less businesses supporting
candidates. And so people were asked to donated on their
income tax one dollar of their taxes that they wouldn't see
anyway and so many people did. I felt better about giving
my dollar, than for putting it into a bond that would kill
Vietnamese people. So we made certain choices. But that
limited the amount of money people could spend first of
all. It also meant that when the president got the monies
contributions, he had to report where it came from. And who
gave it and in what amounts.
Previously money was donated secretly. And there were
all kind of limitations placed on funding. The Nixon people
concerned about this rule going in because they got a lot of
funds from businesses actually went out and before April
1972 and told companies how much they had to contribute if
they wanted anything done. Usually bribes were given by the
company. The Nixon people were demanding bribes. That was
one of the scandals that came about. Sometimes generally
refer to as the Water Gate scandals. Not all of them
revolved around Water Gate. Money was just floating around
when it came into the Nixon campaign. Tens of thousands of
dollars being handed around in paper bags. All of it being
collected before the funding came in. How did this hurt the
parties? Because the businesses, the interest groups, be
they the National Education Society, found away around
reporting the funds. They created political action
committees. PACS. They are the political arm of interest
groups who give the money to the candidates with little
restriction or spending the money on whatever they want for
the candidates with no restrictions. And they didn't have
to actually report it on that level. Political action
committees. PACS. Candidates politicians who owe their
allegiance previously to the party because the party gave
them funds. People would give money to the party. The
businesses would give money to the party, and you know the
party then distributed it so that if a candidate wanted to
run for office, he had to come to the party and listen to
the party and vote the way the party wanted him to. Now,
the party money was restrict. It wasn't coming in in same
amounts and they could get even more money from going to the
political action committees and as the campaign became
expensive and the need to advertise in the media, the
candidates became to forget the political party funds and
appeal to the numerous political action committees. But
since there were so many in such narrow interest the
candidate had to speak in generality and try not to offend
anyone. So candidates became even more planned. Where when
they got it from the party they could stand on the parties
platform. They could take an issue based on the party
issues and people know where the party stood. Now
candidates seem to stand no where on very little issues and
double talked, the Clinton approach to politics in most
cases. Because they were fearful of offending the political
action committees and what money might come from that. And
so as I indicated the political parties lost not only the
support of the public by the support of the politicians as a
sense of, you know, complete loyalty. And there have been
in recent year attempts to break down the PACS they've gone
nowhere. There have been concerned about the -- they
dominated the political landscape.
The only reform, if it's a reform, to break the part of
political action committees is term limits. The concept of
term limits is that if an encumbant elect official a person
in office if they were limit in the amendment of terms they
can serve that's what term limits are; limiting the number
of terms an elected official can serve then the PACS don't
control them as easily or because a new candidate will not
get nearly as much support or control or much to the
political action committees. In fact they will probably give
as much money to both candidates opening it to more
democracy. Why if there are two candidates running will a
political action committee give it to both, but if there's
an encumbant, why give it to the encumbant? Why would you
favor funding an encumbant. Much more likely. In fact, in
recent years, in the last thirty years in the house of reps,
the re election rate for encumbant is 95 percent. The
lowest rate for re election of an encumbants came in 1980 in
the Ronald Reagan landslide when only ninety percent were
reelected. Now we're talking about those running for
election that doesn't mean that all 435 ran for re election.
Obviously large numbers don't or get knocked out of the
primaries, but the encumbant is more likely to win. 95
percent. Not because he gets more money. Why is the
encumbant likely to win? Simple. Name recognition. They
know the name. He's been around or she's been around. On
top of that being an encumbant you have seniority and you
can get more things for your district. Because you've been
around, people owe you power of obligation and when you
bring things home to your district, you get more out of
Washington then your district has put in people are happy.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about pork. Pork
refers to -- referring to getting benefits out of
Washington. Money for roads or post offices, defense
contracts those kinds of things are what the encumbants
getting and if they're powerful and they've been there a
long time, you get more out of it. And that is why it is
quite possible that the people of South Carolina will elect
Strum Thurman when he runs next year at the age of 96. He
is 96 years old and he's dead walking around. But it's
irrelevant. Because he has been there so long that people
just keep given him things and he keeps bringing home wealth
South Carolina as the Senate from South Carolina. And he
says he probably will run again. 96. Yeah. Oh, well.
We'll see you on Thursday.