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


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


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


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


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


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


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.