Building the Party

The scheme of party-owned media assumes the creation of a political party large enough to support an audience whose opinions translate into electoral victories. How are political parties created?

The Republican Party, founded in the 1850s, seized upon the issue of slavery. Abolitionists had created a climate of opinion favorable to the anti-slavery cause. The Fugitive Slave Act angered people in the North. Tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery representatives in Congress stirred the pot of political division. Then the southern states seceded from the Union, Abraham Lincoln was elected President, and the nation became embroiled in a bloody Civil War. It took the North’s victory in that war and the martyrdom of President Lincoln to put the Republican Party in a dominant position.

Adolf Hitler built the Nazi Party by different means. Hitler was a charismatic personality with a gift for public speaking. He skillfully exploited the German people’s dissatisfaction with conditions in the aftermath of World War I. First there was hyperinflation; then, a severe economic depression. As governments of the Weimar Republic seemed unable to cope with the situation, the Nazi party won votes. Finally the president of the Republic called upon its leader, Adolf Hitler, to become chancellor. Once in charge of the government, Hitler ruthlessly consolidated his power. World War II brought an end to the Nazi regime.

The communist party, on the other hand, came to power after a half century of ideological agitation. First came the labor movement, centered in trade unions. Then Karl Marx and his colleague, Friedrich Engels, developed the idea of communism in their writings. This labor-centered ideology combined history, philosophy, and religion with the self-proclaimed “science” of Marxist economics. Its followers organized themselves internationally. Lenin, leader of the Russian Marxists in the Second International, returned to Russia from Switzerland and rallied the Bolshevik Party. This party seized political power in Russia through armed insurrection, exploiting the weakness of the post-Czarist Karensky government.

Even if this is not a political party, it may be useful to discuss how our political “model”, Minneapolis Property Rights Action Committee, was built. This group began with a handful of Minneapolis landlords wanting to sue the city. They met every other week in a real-estate office. The group was looking for other landlords to contribute money for a class-action lawsuit. That’s how it gained members. After the lawsuit was dismissed, the Property Rights group went into protest action and staging of its own cable-television show.

But the group would not have succeeded without its leader, Charlie Disney. A former stockbroker and proprietor of a table-tennis parlor, Disney was a skilled organizer. He attributed his success, however, not to personal skill but to “making thousands of telephone calls.” In other words, he was continually in touch with members of the group, persuading and motivating them to help it in various ways.

To summarize, then, successful political parties need at least two things:

First, they need an immediate crisis which motivates people to join the party. That crisis could be dissolution of the Union, as in the case of the Republican Party; the German people’s lingering bitterness at defeat in World War I, as in the case of the Nazi party; the devastation of World War I and overthrow of the Czarist government, as in the case of the Russian government; and Minneapolis landlords’ grievances against the city’s use of building inspections, as in the case of Minneapolis Property Rights Action Committee.

Second, there need an effective leader to deal with the crisis. The Republicans had Abraham Lincoln, a political genius. The Nazis had Hitler, with his oratorical skills. The Communists had Lenin, a respected ideologue who had attracted a core of like-minded individuals. The Property Rights group had Charlie Disney, a personable leader willing to make the many phone calls to build the organization.

What, prospectively, does Gold Party have? It does have a crisis. The government of the United States, which launched a unilateral attack on Iraq, is stuck with the consequences of that ill-considered decision. Because of tax cuts and self-indulgent, out-of-control spending, the federal budget is in disarray. There is a large and growing trade deficit, with no signs of a turnaround. Public opinion polls show small percentages of approval for both the President and the Congress.

What about an effective leader? That remains to be seen. Gold Party as yet hardly exists. Whether it can attract a political genius like Abraham Lincoln, or a public speaker of Hitlerian cunning and skill, or a dogged ideological spokesman like Lenin, or an energetic, persistent communicator like Charlie Disney, cannot be determined at this time. While persons of such talents would obviously be welcome, no promises can be made. 

The System of Unequal Voting

The idea behind Gold Party is to try another approach to political organization. In the absence of a charismatic leader at the center of the group, a political party might also thrive if it provides the proper incentives for members. In this respect, the system of organization would mimic the workings of money. A political party, even lacking a gifted leader, could maintain itself and flourish by a system of incentives that motivate people to work hard and contribute to the group. In any event, successful organizations tend to outgrow their base in personal relationships and need a structure of rules suitable to a larger, decentralized operation.

The proposal here is for a system of weighted voting based upon the number of membership “points” which a member has received. Each member of this political party would receive a number of points based upon the contribution to party objectives. It would be like employees of a firm business receiving a certain amount of money for their work. Obviously the amounts of money cannot be equal for all the firm’s employees if their work contributions differ. Neither should the votes of a political party be equal if the members are unequally involved in its activities. Otherwise, there is no incentive to help build the party.

Voting at party functions would take place according to a member’s individual number of points. How would the points be determined? One cannot give a simple answer. Each member’s point total would be determined by a formula bringing in several elements. Its computation would require the use of computers. Party rules would prescribe that certain actions would receive a certain number of points. Other points would be awarded by committee on a discretionary basis. The member would, like money, “own” these points although they would not be transferable to another person.

The awarding of points would be related to a member’s help in advancing the party agenda. In its initial phase, Gold Party’s agenda would be simply to grow in size of membership. Therefore, the points which are prescribed in the rules would be related to the act of acquiring party members.

Party membership involves two acts:

First, the member would fill out and sign a membership form indicating general agreement with the party’s objectives.

Second, the member would pay a certain amount of money to the party in annual dues.

Despite those requirements, party membership would not be onerous. Membership in Gold Party would not entail an exclusive commitment to support this particular party. One could be a Democrat, Republican, or member of another existing party and also a member of Gold Party. (But if one is definitely opposed to Gold Party, there would be no sense in joining.) Also, the level of annual dues could be anything from one penny to ten thousand dollars. The membership points would increase as the amount of dues increased. They would not increase in proportion to money contributed but according to a formula that moderates the difference in dues.

Given those conditions, points are awarded for certain actions related to membership growth:

First, one receives a certain number of points for one’s own membership. The particular number is correlated with the dues paid for the year according to the prescribed schedule.

Second, one receives a certain number of points for recruiting someone else to become a member at a certain level of dues. It would be a fraction of the points that one would receive for one’s own membership. However, members have the potential to receive more points from this kind of activity through multiple recruitments.

Third, one receives a certain number of points for recruiting a new member who, in turn, recruits another member. This would be a fraction of the points received for recruiting someone directly. But, again, the potential for acquiring points in this way would be great. The point is to encourage members to recruit “go-getters” for party membership so there is an ever-expanding incentive for the party to grow.

The details of this scheme need to be worked out. Computer software needs to be written that can quickly and conveniently handle the assignment of points at various levels. The definitive answer to which member should be credited for recruitment of another would come from the person recruited.

There would also be a fourth way that members of Gold Party could receive points. That would be on the basis of leadership functions or being involved in various party activities. The leaders of local party groups should receive these “merit-based” points by virtue of their organizational responsibilities. The editors and writers of the party’s newspaper, producers of its radio or cable-television show, and others contributing to the media operation should receive points. If the group organized public activities, those efforts, too, might earn points. A committee of party officials should decide which organizational functions merit the awarding of points and how many points the function should receive.

A Pyramid Scheme

The idea of awarding Gold Party points for recruiting other members, especially for those who have themselves recruited other members, resembles a pyramid scheme, so notorious in the world of money.

We are all familiar with chain letters. The letter, sent to us by a friend or acquaintance, contains a list of four names. It instructs us to send a certain sum of money to the person at the bottom of the list, remove that person’s name on the list, put one’s own name at the top of the list, and then send copies of the letter to five friends. The letter assures us that, if we and the others in the chain all follow instructions, money will soon start pouring in. And it is true. That would happen if everyone down the line followed those instructions.

The problem, of course, is that people do not follow the instructions. They are also reluctant to involve friends in the chain letter. People know, at least instinctively, that the system cannot sustain itself. Our community has a finite population. As the number of letters increases exponentially within that population, the chain letter runs out of people to keep the chain going. The population becomes saturated with this letter. As an economic proposition, it is unrealistic.

Chain letters, Ponzi schemes, and multi-level distributorships or “pyramid” organizations all share this characteristic. They are good for the initial “investors” but bad for people down the line in the chain. However, there is no doubt that such schemes appeal to many people. The idea of multiplying one’s initial investment is a powerful motivation.

Curiously, the dynamics are different in a “political pyramid” such as where members would receive points for recruiting other members. In this case, you want more people to have participated. You want saturation of populations. While it’s true that the early participants have an advantage with respect to acquiring points, the name of the game is to take over the government. As the process of recruitment continues and a larger number of people join the party, the party grows in size. Eventually it is able to command a majority of votes in elections. Then its representatives are able to take over the government. Then those points become real. When the U.S. population has become saturated with Gold Party members, its political objectives can be reached.

Are These Points Real?

One’s immediate impression might be that those political “points” are a fiction. “Votes” awarded for use in Gold Party’s internal affairs are meaningless. They acquire meaning only if the party is able to take over the government; and, even then, they may not confer an advantage upon individuals possessing them. Unless Gold Party has socialistic aims, political power may not be convertible into money.

However, the possession of state power is a carte blanche to exercise other kinds of power. It trumps arrangements based on money. So, if you think money is real, this other kind of power is real as well. But we are a long way from it unless we can take over the government.

Until then, this system of points is merely a way to organize political activity. The owners of Gold Party are essentially the owner of a political brand name. But brand names are important in politics. Building a successful partisan brand is a key to winning elections.

Also, the point system would create a leadership class for the party. A point-rich aristocracy would emerge. From this group would come persons of unmistakable merit whose voice would command respect. So if we are looking for party leaders, this is a way they can be found - with points assigned to their name.

 Click for a translation into:

French - Spanish - German - Portuguese - Italian