Political Science

What does Ferguson mean by the term apolarity How does this differ from uni-, bi-, multi-polarity Do you agree that it constitutes a more dangerous world condition

Ferguson (2004) describes apolarity as the absence of a global hegemonic power. Thus its opposite, unipolarity, is the reign of a single superpower over global affairs, which many argue exists now with the US holding this title. Bipolarity is the rival of two superpowers over world domination, such as the state of global affairs during the Cold War between the US and the USSR. Multipolarity refers to a balance of power between multiple superpowers, such as sixteenth century Europe under England, Spain, and France. After describing these power possibilities, Ferguson further argues that an apolar world is inherently more dangerous than one with a single superpower at the helm.

Ferguson supports his argument with an example from history as well as his prediction on future international relations. He looks to the period after the fall of the Roman Empire in the ninth and tenth centuries as a historical apolar example. The result, he remarks, was the flourishing of small entities, religious fanaticism, and religious-influenced political controversies and violence. He predicts an upcoming power vacuum sometime early in the twenty-first century based on the inability of the US to maintain its unipolar status the aging of Old Europe the potential economic failure of China and the dissolution of the Muslim world as a political bloc. He suggests that in this apolar world, chaos, increased levels of violence and stronger adherence to religion will devastate the planet.

I disagree with Ferguson  I do not foresee a dangerous apolar world in our near future. If the past is an indicator, an apolar world will only be temporary and fairly quickly replaced by the reign of one or more superpowers. Power vacuums are few in number, as even Ferguson admits, and they never last very long. Also, Ferguson argues that an apolar world will return us all to the Dark Ages. What he seems to misunderstand is that the Dark Ages didnt affect the entire globe, but rather Europe alone. Indeed, other countries experienced Golden Ages at the same period, including the Islamic civilization, the West African Trade kingdoms, and the Mayan civilization. While chaos, anarchy, and violence plagued Europe, quite the opposite flourished in Africa, the Middle East, and Central America. I think Ferguson overstates the potential for global disruption in the absence of a hegemonic power. Indeed, there most likely will be violence, perhaps even a higher rate of religious devotion, but I cannot agree that the world will crumble without the rule of one over the many.

In 1987, Felix manufactured methamphetamine at a facility in Oklahoma. Manufacture of methamphetamine was a violation of the federal statutes. The facility was later shut down by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents. This prompted Felix to order for a delivery of chemicals and equipments in Missouri from George Dwinnels, a DEA informant. Felix paid the first installment of 7500 and he instructed Dwinnels to deliver the merchandise to a Joplin, Missouri hotel. Dwinnels and Felix later met at the hotel and the merchandise was delivered to him but just before he transferred the chemicals to his car, government officials arrested him. In his defense, he argued that he had no criminal intention but he was acting under the mistaken belief that he was working for a covert DEA operation (FindLaw, 2009).

The federal government produced evidence that he was previously involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine in Oklahoma. Also, past evidence indicated that Felix had purchased precursor materials from Dwinnels which he later sold to Paul Roach in exchange for lessons on how to manufacture methamphetamine. This was used as a means to determine the extent of his criminal intention which consequently led to his conviction. The Oklahoma transactions were found to be admissible in showing Felixs state of mind with respect to the chemicals and the equipments.

Felix was named in 8 counts of an 11 count indictment. In the first count, Felix and five other accomplices were charged with the conspiracy to manufacture, possess and distribute methamphetamine. Felix had his name in nine overt acts that supported the conspiracy charge. Overt act 17 charged Felix with providing money for the purchase of equipment to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine while at Oklahoma. Overt act 18 charged him with the possession of chemicals and equipments which were necessary for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Count 2-5 alleged that he had manufactured methamphetamine with the intention to distribute .Count 6 charged him and a co-defendant with maintaining a methamphetamine manufacturing lab (Onecle, 2009). Felix was also charged for traveling from Texas to the Eastern District of Oklahoma with the intention of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine. He was convicted for all the crimes which he was charged with.

For count 1, the government proved that Felix had learnt how to make methamphetamine and had actually manufactured methamphetamine while at Oklahoma. The federal government also proved that Felix had sought to buy more chemicals and equipments after the raid in his Oklahoma facility.

Relevance of the double jeopardy clause
However, the courts of appeal reversed the conviction on count 1-6 of the Oklahoma indictment. This was after relying on the facts as presented in the case of Grady v.Corbin. The case of Grady v. Corbin relied on the Double Jeopardy clause. The double jeopardy clause protects one from three different forms of abuses.  It protects one from being tried twice for the same offence after acquittal protects one from a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction and it does protect one from multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case, the government needs to prove that the conduct of Felix constitute an offense (Shestokas, 2008). The courts of appeal held that there was duplication of conduct which is barred by the double jeopardy clause.

For the substantive cases in the count 2-6, the court had direct evidence supporting the charges. The evidence was that Felix had purchased the chemicals and equipments which he subsequently used in the manufacture of methamphetamine in Oklahoma. This was the same evidence that had been produced during the Missouri trial. The court held that they were subjecting Felix to multiple trials for the same conduct. Thus the convictions on counts 2-6 were also reversed.

However, many felt that the double jeopardy clause did not bar the prosecution of Felix for these crimes. They first considered whether the Double jeopardy clause was applicable in the Oklahoma indictment for counts 2-6. For these counts the court of appeals argued that the government was foreclosed because it had produced the same evidence for both the Missouri and Oklahoma case (Shestokas, 2008). The critics feel that the crimes that Felix was charged for while at Oklahoma are related to the operations of the methamphetamine lab near Beggs but the crimes in Missouri are related to the purchase of chemicals and equipments from Dwinnels.

They claim that the two crimes are different in both time and place thus there is no common link between the two crimes. The critics feel that the court of appeal focused more on the actual crimes committed instead of the evidence presented by the government in the two trails. In addition, they cite that Felix was only charged with the attempt offense and the courts failed to acknowledge the amount of evidence produced in a bid to show the state of mind of Felix.

The critics hold that the double jeopardy clause is not applicable in the substance drug offenses and the conspiracy charge. They believed that a mere overlap of proof does not amount to the double jeopardy clause. The conclusion was that the court of appeal had actually erred by relying on the facts as presented in the case of Grady v. Corbin. The case of Grady should not have been used in analyzing persecutions of multilayered conduct. It is much useful in case arising from single course of conduct (FindLaw, 2009). They felt that it was extravagant to rely on the case of Grady rather they should have relied on the decision made in Dowling v. United States.

In Dowling v. United States, Dowling had been charged with bank robbery. To identify him, the government used the Federal Rule of Evidence. The state used Vena Henry who testified that she had been a victim of robbery where the robber had worn a knitted mask. Vena was to testify that she was actually able to identify the robber as Dowling after unmasking him after a struggle. Despite the fact that Dowling had earlier been acquitted of the bank robbery charges, the critics do uphold with the introduction of Henry in this case. Thus, the Double Jeopardy clause did not guarantee Dowling protection from double prosecution (Onecle, 2009).
Therefore, they conclude that the government did not prosecute Felix for the Oklahoma transactions but they only introduced the transactions as prior acts of evidence. They feel that the government should prosecute Felix for the counts 2 through 6 and they express their opinion that the courts of appeal had actually erred by relying on the double Jeopardy Clause.

The 21st century is very challenging for the labor union, this is due to advancement in a number of technological changes, and the union therefore has to employ relevant methodologies to meet these challenges. Currently unions have a calling to look for the workers recognition at the workplace, the union should carry out the collective bargaining for the workers thereby redistributing the economic benefits, goods and services flowing to employees from management, the union also have the mandate to represent the employees at the management meetings and provide political umbrella (Garin  Molyneux pp. 22)

The labor unions have recorded lower density for some time now, this owed to various factors. The best effective strategy in the post industrial era where the union density is low includes emphasis on union representation function and its voice. The union should also fight for the nonmembers whose them majority comprising the service sector with the low wages. This group is more vulnerable to employer exploitation because they have low economic viability (Garin  Molyneux pp. 55-56) Nonunionized and unionized workers should both fight towards a strategy that supports the group that is most vulnerable because they are at the edge of gender discrimination, race and even class subordination.

The low unionized workers density has destroyed the collective bargaining powers option of the unions. The collective bargains for economic justice by the workers have been today rendered illegitimate because the numbers of bargainers have reduced at the work place. In fact the NLRA (The National Labor Relations Acts) is frozen through the legislative discrimination it lacks proper funding, enjoys limited credibility from the Supreme Court and further commands no respect from the workers. The unions are avoiding the labor legislations, they no longer claim rights under the unions. On the other hand the state legislation and federal law is booming on individual employee rights protection which are enforced by the government agencies or by the private lawyers getting support from the civil rights, community justice groups and the community actions. Despite all these occurrences the employee does not have good understanding of their position or the legal rights and most of them lack the required resources to push for clams. There is dire need for collective force to fight for worker rights like overtime pay, minimum wage pay, working conditions, political support is also required to get the rights and maintain them. The labor unions are definitely aware of all these and therefore are directly and actively involved in political activities to support a party that supports such legal reforms on employees. The union has been in the fore-front in lobbying for the enactment of pro-worker legislations the NLRA reforms, legislation on minimum standards and the Fair Labor Standards Acts formed in 1970.

There is a total distrust of the politicians by the union members, they believe that politicians would say everything possible to make them get the votes, thereafter they foregut the promises the made to the union, this has made the union members to believe that political endorsements are not effective (A Pew Research study Center)

The labor unions play a major role in the influence of voter turnouts in political elections they stimulate participation in politics through education sessions and voter registration exercises usually carried out at the union meetings and rallies. The methods and tactics the unions may use to encourage members voting range from mail reminding them to vote, strike of the list those who have voted, carry out door to door visits on the non voter houses. The union also takes part in sensitization on politics and economics relations. The union persuasions are significant because they know the members better than the politicians, on persuading the members research have shown that there is always some percentage of spillovers to union embers friends and families (A Pew Research study Center)

In the recent decades, many scholars have placed their argument that Democratic Party have not done much to solve the workers problems and needs and harmed further by globalization and low wages sectors and meager benefits to employees in unionized economies. The economic conservatism of the democrats is blamed on the money role in politics according to Benjamin Ginsberg politics have evolved from labor intensive to capital intensive elections basically in the media, money therefore is a controlling factor in the elections or politics (Beachler)

In 1990s workers engaged in a strong labor fight that was evidently historical, at the A.E. Staley corn processing plant in Illinois, Decatur. The company had earlier launched a serious assault on the workers at the industry, Allied Industrial Employees Local 837 reacted or rather responded by providing education to the members and mobilizing the worker members, scouting strong support from the African American societies and the religious communities, creating countrywide solidarity movement and taking part in nonviolent disobedient by the civil at the gate of the plant. Through numerous interviews by the media houses, videotapes of each and every meeting of the union,

The center for responsive politics have in their website indicated how money has influenced the outcomes of the United States elections and the money influence on the U.S public policies. Money has direct influence on the outcomes of elections the more money a political party uses the more chances they have in winning the elections ( HYPERLINK httpwww.opensecrets.org www.opensecrets.org). This can also be seen in the rise of the democrats party and the win of Barrack Obama.

The Labor Sector is an important part in each and every economy, that is why they deserve every right and protection every state and government can offer.

Now, the query would be does America still needs a Labor Party as a Political Entity to best represent labor in all its concerns

Why For in its present state of affairs--it still feels that labor as a sector is not justly, properly, rightly and equally represented to be able to perfectly air and carry-out all its concerns  regarding workers.

As a matter of fact, in the  Mouseland  Animation Film that carried the thoughts of Tommy Douglas he pointed out that, a cat can never best represent mice interests and concerns for what is overwhelming would be for the cats self-interest and ends  always, addressing for their (cats) welfare. For how can it best represent a concern truly alien and not belonging to him (cat) In the first place, cats never understand mice world.    

In the course of American Democratic History labor as a sector has been victorious , successful and effective instrument or catalyst in bringing and carrying-out major changes in the welfare, conditions and benefits of the working class. Political, Economic and Health concern benefits that lead to the betterment and greater welfare of the working class. More, to be justly treated as humans by employers and not just as an economic commodity or even slaves.

Over time, Labors role in Politics never changed they do always work hard for the greater benefit of the working class and their families  they do their part, they support the Democrats and they lobby for their greater interest (Babson np).

In spite of the labor sectors efforts to bring changes into their economic and social conditions in the economic world against their employers  but, still employers are making a lot of efforts like in the Staley Case, Caterpillar and Frestone to defeat the workers welfare standards which seemed to be unfair. This strategy of employers does not only affect Decatur Community  perception of labor  but whole America in general (Ashby and Hawking np).

Meanwhile , Michael Yates posits that with all the accomplishments the labor sector in America have had accomplished indeed, the labor sector as that best represents the interest  of the working class was an effective instrument in pointing out and addressing the social and economic needs of the workers and propel or lobby in Congress for greater benefits or legislative enactments (Yates np).

However, the voting patterns of union members never followed to the dictates of the labor partys carrying out of its goals just like what reflected in the AFL-CIO Americas Union Movement result where union members who were expected to vote for the Democrats indeed voted for the Republicans by 76 and only 24  for the Democrats (AFL-CIO np).

See It does not follow as to unionist members idea of perfectly voting for the Democrats  purely because they carry the labor sectors interest and welfare  voting for an election by a unionist member takes a universal appeal considering for a Republican Candidate.  It does not necessarily follow that since the Labor Sectors concerns appeal more to a Democrat that union members will purely vote for the Democrats.

However, between the American Two-Party System labor sector supports the Democrats in its party platforms than to Republican Candidates (AFL-CIO np). As a matter of fact, labor sector and their families were pretty excited about the result of the said elections.

And now, on the position of should America needs a purely labor party to enter politics to promote the greater good of the working-class definitely, no.  Not anymore Not even to the idea of Jan Pierce that labor partys funding for a Democrat campaign for an election must be re-directed instead, fund it into a more concrete program for social movement.

To sum it up, the very essence of a Democratic set-up of government is that all the sectors of society is given equal and greater opportunity to be heard and equally represented by the party specifically promoting certain policies and priorities for the government. So, there is no  greater need for an independent labor party representing solely the interest of labor.

Also, a third-party set up in America is not applicable. People are not used to it. Hence, a Two-Party System is enough in the meantime to best represent the needs of the working class.

For me, the Lower House would be enough representation of the workers or labor groups sentiments for them to initiate, get started or pass laws.    

Creating a labor-party would just create an  imbalance  in the Democratic Set-Up of government for what they promote is purely their welfare to the detriment of other sectors in the society  more, giving them an equal participation in politics just like the Republican and the Democratic Political Party would just create a highly  politicized  labor party and instead would tend to divert and redirect party goals and policies which would not be the same than the usual.

According to Geoffrey Garins and Guy Molyneuxs Informing and Empowering American Workers (114), a survey was conducted amongst union members regarding a  unions actvie engagement in the political process,  and three quarters of the survey respondents believe that unions, indeed, need to exert time, effort, as well as money in politics. It is widely believed that by actively participating in politics, unions could help minimize the influence of corporations on politicians the more unions are involved, the lesser are the chances that corporations will influence politicians into bending into their interests.

    Apart from this, out of ten union members, seven believe that it is more wise to vote for an individual who is supported by national unions and American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Also, the candidate must have  strong pro-union positions on the issues  that unions and its members are fighting for. The explanation for these positions is that union members believe that big corporations can influence politicians into changing labor laws into laws which the corporation could benefit from there are instances wherein these corporations interests do not benefit the workers, and union members believe that by initiating union involvement in politics, unions could ensure that workers rights are protected. Apart from this, unions need to make sure that the working-class is given a voice during the political process (Garin and Molyneux 114).

    One problem that unions face upon engaging in politics is that there are instances wherein unions pursue skewed political goals. Sometimes, the union engages itself in politics and becomes absorbed in it that it forgets about the goals of its members and the reasons on why it engaged itself in politics in the first place. Another problem is that some unions do not focus on involving and informing their members, resulting in politically powerless union members. Unions must focus on its members and on finding means to empower its members if the union trusts its members with vital political information, it believes that its members can make proper voting choices and decisions. Most unions do not properly inform their members and instead, these unions merely bombard their members with information regarding endorsements of who these unions believe should be voted. If a union is engaged in politics, it needs to give its members the information they need in order to make wise decisions. Some unions get blinded by their means that they forget their ends most engage in politics with clear goals and yet they fail to meet these goals, eventually failing union members. Union members need to be reassured that the union they are part of is a union that aims to empower them as workers (Garin and Molyneux 114-115).

    According to Garin and Molyneux (116-120), there are unions must follow ten rules when it comes to participating in politics. First, union issues must always come first, whereas political parties and their candidates are only second unions must not lose track of their goals and focus on what it really important for its members. Second, unions need to  provide members with information, not voting instructions  union members want to be empowered, therefore, they want to be able to decide for themselves, instead of being told what to do. Third, unions need to present information credibly and objectively therefore, unions must be able to present information without including their biases and ulterior motives. Fourth, unions must not be partisan unions must work independently with the motive of empowering and helping their members. Fifth, unions should work as watchdogs and make sure that the information that they are giving to their members are information that is accurate. Some politicians put on a facade whenever they face unions and act as if they are pro-union when in fact they have entirely different agendas. Unions should be able to see beneath the surface and properly inform their members. Apart from this, once a union and its member support and elect a candidate, the union must make sure that the politician represents the union and its members once he or she is in the position.

    Sixth, unions need to represent its members are workers and that they address issues that directly affect union members, particularly their jobs. There are unions who take positions when it comes to cultural and social issues and union members deem this inappropriate for these issues are not directly related to their job and are very sensitive. Seventh,  union political action should always be of, by, and for the members.  A union could not properly represent its members if it does not base its political actions on the concerns and needs of the members.

    According to a PEW Research Center news release (2-4), there are six types of people who when it comes to the election process the regular voters, the intermittent voters, the registered but rare voters, the unregistered adults, the regular and intermittent voters, and the non-voters. The PEW Research Center focused on those who do not vote and conducted a survey to find out the reason on why some people do not engage in the election process, however, the results indicate that there is no single reason. Apparently, people have very relative reasons when it comes to voting. It all ends up on whatever may motivate them to engage in the process.

    In relation to this, a lot of union members feel apathetic towards the process for they feel that they are not properly informed and that their opinion is not needed. The eighth rule to consider when participating in politics is that if unions want to mobilize its members, they need to provide them information. Ninth, in order for unions to mobilize their members during the election process, unions need to be able to communicate to them via modern communication means and tenth, unions should address its members concerns by looking at them in sub-groups, for not everything may apply to everyone. For example, women and men see issues differently, and unions must address these properly (Garin and Molyneux 120-124).

    According to Donald Bleacher (311-315), unions played a significant role in the mobilization on union voters in the 2000 election. However, there are several aspects that affect the voting decisions of the union voter, such as race, religion, and standpoint regarding firearms. For example, Latinos, whites, and Christians who live in union households are far more inclined to vote for the Democratic party, whereas blacks and those who are non-Christians prefer those from the Republican party. In Bleachers Victory and the Promise of Reform Labor and the 2008 Election (267), it was stated that blacks were persuaded by unions into voting by stating that they ought to vote so that there is a chance that they can elect a black president, who is a friend, rather than have white people elect a white president who is an enemy.

     In 2008, Barack Obama won the seat of the president of the United States. It is said that  unions worked very hard  in order for Obama to be elected, for his  records in the U.S Senate  show that he is pro-labor. Fifty-nine percent of of Obamas votes were from workers living in union houeholds, for they believe that Obama would be able to help unions and their members address their issues. When Obama was elected, he  enhanced the prospects for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)  and enabled unions to organize in the United States (Bleacher 265).

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, there are a lot of American donors who provide campaign contributions for political parties and candidates. Out of the estimated US population of 296, 410, 404, around 0.10 provide political parties and candidates with 200 or more currently, the House Candidate and Senate Candidate whom are able to raise the highest are Joe Wilson and Harry Reid, respectively. Most of the contributions that these politicians have accumulated are from lawyers, retired individuals, health professionals and so on. Given that both are Republicans, it could be said that unions have to work hard in lobbying for politicians from the Democratic party, for Republicans have the reputation of being anti-labor.

    According to the Federal Election Commissions Citizens Guide, both corporations and unions are not allowed to contribute to the campaign funds of a politician, given that this may compromise the politician into standing for a certain corporation, or a certain union, when in fact, there should be fair play. However, individuals from a corporation may use their personal accounts to contribute to the politician of their choice. If this is the case, then the best that unions can do to make sure that they are properly informing their members about the running politicians. Information is always a good means to motivate employees, because, as previously discussed, by informing employees, they feel a sense of empowerment.  Apart from this, if the employees are well-informed, the higher are the chances that they will vote and encourage others to vote as well for a specific politician whom they deem to be someone who is pro-labor and will represent them properly.

    Empowered employees, as seen in the previous discussion, feel the need to contribute to the political process. By giving them relevant information, encouraging them, and letting them make their own decisions, they can contribute to the possibility of electing a politician that will be able to address their labor issues.

The labor sector comprises a huge bulk of the United States political and economic landscape. However, given the capitalist set-up, labor is bound to be one of the marginalized areas of American society. History would show that the struggle for economic equality rests mainly on the domain of the fight of the labor movement. And the labor movement is only but a result of a wider and more entrenched union groups. On the other hand, statistics would show that the working class and their families are sources of poll victories to any political party the labor movement chooses to support. Since the 1930s, there exists a union-Democrat alliance wherein candidates of the Democratic Party almost always garner the support of the greater majority of the members of labor unions across the country. However, if current labor situations would be the basis of judging whether coming into alliance with the Democrats, or with any of the two political parties for that matter, served the labor sector better, it can be confidently said that the alliance is, on the most parts, a failure for the labor movement. The question now is whether it would be best if the labor movement formed a political party of their own given its vast political support base and a sort of organized form - not to mention an almost consistent and one ideology and vision. Taking all things into perspective, however, one can say that despite the fact that the labor sector should have a political party of its own to better serve its purpose and protect its interests, the political clime is just not ripe for this kind of endeavor as well as the fact that the labor movement, specifically the labor unions, still needs to be strengthened. This paper will look into this contention by assessing the history of the labor sector in terms of political struggles, the pros and cons of the current two-party system to the movement, and the goals of labor unions. 

    The absence of a labor party in the United States can be attributed to a host of factors. First, the American government was created as a result of a revolt against the English conquerors thus many people, including the working class, recognize the government as their own greatly in the ideals of a democratic society. Because of this perception,  most white working man...did not undertake to form a labor party  (Yates 114). Aside from this, the politics is dominated by the Democratic and the Republican Parties by tradition and  sanctioned by laws  making any attempt of any new party into the field predominantly nil of success (114). Also, society is wary of any  labor radicalism  either in the form of political parties or labor unions (114). This situation led Samuel Gompers, a famous labor leader, to remark that the working class should  abandon politics and concentrate on building labor parties  (115). This ideology became widespread in the years to follow only to be altered a little during the Great Depression when most workers come to the aid of candidates of the Democratic Party hoping that Democrats would serve them well. This paved the way for the union-Democrat alliance still in effect up to the present. In fact, in the 2006  Congressional elections, union voters provided Democrat candidates with a whooping 74 support gaining the party 233 House and 51 Senates seats (AFL-CIO n.p.). These figures are further magnified if one is to consider that one in every four voters belong to the working class. In the case of Decatur, Illinois a labor dispute between the workers of the A.E. Staley corn processing plant and the management lead to a greater solidarity of labor unions in the city and during the 1995 local elections successfully elected city leaders from their own ranks or supportive of their cause (Ashby  Hawking 210-211).

    Given this encouraging scenario, one is bound to believe that a labor party is on the rise. However, why is there a need for such a party Tommy Douglas presented a justification for the need of the labor movement to enter into mainstream politics by using the story of Mouseland as an analogy. Douglas argued that the working class, the mice in Mouseland, is primarily the majority of the society. Yet despite their strength in numbers, the mice population time and time again opted for cats, the politicians, to rule over them. This situation is detrimental to the worker  mice  as the  cats  would understandably look after their own interests and that of their kind and it does not matter what predisposition the cats have, the fact is, they are still cats and are thus alien to the plight of the  mice . Therefore, there is a need for the workers to coalesce and form a political alliance with one another in order to promote their own interests and protect their rights against the capitalists. As Royal Plankenhorn argued,  We have to break down the walls that divide us because his battle is my battle, my battle is his battle, and your battle is my battle. We cant succeed any other way  (as qtd. in Ashby  Hawkings 99).

    However, one needs to remember Gompers missive regarding efforts to enter into the political field. Gompers rightly observed that politics is a  divisive subject  which could potentially render collective efforts  impossible to sustain  (Yates 115). It is in this vein that he advised the labor movement  to abandon labor politics and concentrate on building labor unions  (115). One could observe that despite the congruence in goals of each and every labor union, they still fail to collectively come together and present a unified front. What is happening is that the labor movement is, on the most part, greatly confined to the concerns of union workers in any given locality. Thus, although the issues are one and the same if seen on a holistic perspective, there is an absence of the recognition of this fact, or at least, to coagulate in pursuit of a collective interest on a national level. Therefore, one can say that the time to create a national labor party which is not only competitive on the national level but would also be able to survive political storms is still not ripe. As Gompers advised, the labor movement first need to strengthen labor unions (115). Aside from this, the public is still in need of greater education in terms of workers rights and the plight of the working class. There is no question that majority of Americans still regard the labor movement, from unionism to the entry to politics, with wariness and caution. Although, union voters are steadily presents a unified front in national and local elections this does not translate to an assurance that a labor party would have the same support. There is still a need to educate the  ignorant  majority and win them over to the cause of the workers.

    In conclusion, a labor party in America is still a bit pre-mature as of this moment. There are still some important things, like public education and nationwide worker unification, to be achieved before even pondering whether or not to create such party. Although, the fact that a labor party is needed now more than ever, the working class need to consider the long-run. If a labor party is to be created, it must be one that would be able to weather political, economic and social conditions of the future. It must not only be responsive to the problems of the present but should be, at all times, present in order to forward the interests of the workers.

    The question of whether democracies wage war against each other has continued to spark a lot of interest among different scholars from different sectors and countries. While some are strongly convinced that democracies wage war against each other, others feel that it is highly unlikely for democracies to fight against other democratic states. Democracies do not go to war with each other theory has been debated for the past two decades and still continues to raise various arguments today. Authors and theorists supporting this theory argue that since democracies have policies that are open to criticism and that are transparent, they are more open to negotiations and rarely result in war as a means of solving their conflicts. It is argued that free people rarely fight against each other but instead look for ways to resolve their differences through dialogue. However, there are some schools of thought that feel that democracies just as the socialist countries are engaged in war with each other and there are various evidences of wars to support this. Since the 1960s, theorists and scholars have observed that there has been peaceful coexistence between various types of regimes. This trend has been peculiar in most well established democracies leading to the question of whether democracies really engage in war with each other.

Do democracies wage war against each other
    The debate on whether democracies engage in wars against each other is an interesting topic today having to do to international relations. The idea that democracies do not fight with other ones was first introduced by Immanuel Kant, a philosopher in his essay dubbed perpetual peace in the year 1875. Historically, there has been no clear evidence on whether democratic countries engage or do not engage in war with other democratic countries. Liberal democracies of post Second World War comprising of North America and Europe have not engaged with each other in war. Various socio-political reasons have been formulated to explain the reason for regional peacefulness that has been observed between democracies. Most analysts have come to a conclusion that democracies have never engaged in or waged war against other democracies. It has also been argued that the only way to reduce wars and poverty around the world is by ensuring that all countries become democratic. Analysts argue that the interpretation of democracy and war are the foundation of determining whether democracies engage in or fight against other democracies.

Definitions and arguments of democracy
    The term democracy has become a major source of difference when it comes to the evaluation of the debate of war between democracies. An understanding of such definitions is vital in evaluation of the peace theory or the foundations of the concept that democracies do not fight against each other. Different theorists have come up with different definitions of democracy. One of the oldest definitions was forwarded by Immanuel Kant in the year 1875. Kant was opposed to the idea of direct democracy arguing that this kind of democracy leads to the establishment of and executive powers that is contrary to the will of the general public. Kant advocated for constitutional republic characterized by individuals liberties that are protected or guarded against the will of all or the majority. Another theorists who defined democracy during this period were Singer and Small (1976) who defined democracy as being made up of nations that allow for periodic elections whereby opposition parties were allowed and free to become government parties, a country that allows over ten percent of its adult population to participate in the elections and lastly a government or a country with a parliament that is charged with the role of controlling the governments executive branch. Other definitions have been formulated by different theorists with the most recent by Rummel in 1997 that defined democracy in terms of liberalism. Rummel argued that democracy is depicted when government officials are only allowed to hold power via a competitive election following a secret ballot, where individuals are granted freedom of religion, speech and organization and where a constitution governing a country allows and guarantees equal rights for all citizens. Rummel is one of the theorists who have highly supported the argument that democracies do not war against other democracies.

    The changing definition of democracy has contributed largely to the debate as to why democracies do not wage war on each other. Unlike in the past, many of the republics though they may have a voting system or the elections, they do not qualify to be termed as democracies. Changes in the definition of the term have made many researchers and scientists come to consensus that no genuine democracy has in the past engaged in any war with another genuine democracy. The question of mutual peace has come up in most of the debates regarding lack of war between democratic countries. In the past, it was argued that genuine democracies seek mutual peace, a reason that has restrained war between them. Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to bring out the idea of peace and democracy. Kant argued that human beings are inherently peaceful and as such, they cannot wage war unless they are provoked by tyranny. However, this explanation of lack of wars between democrats has so far been refuted due to the existence of democratic belligerence problem that democracies experience.  

    Democracies naturally tend to ensure mutual peace despite the fact that they may have many differences and may even be enemies. Dubrovnik is a good example of democracies that have not resulted in war for a long time. This republic built great walls to enable it survive amidst chaos and wars. It wanted to become an independent republic going by the name of Ragusa. Citizens of this country used to elect their officials and to vote for their councils for a long time. The country also had a well crafted constitution. Venice was another very stable republic but a great enemy to Ragusa at this time. They were bitter competitors in the Adriatic trade. The two cities were the merchants in this trade, although they used to regard each other as enemies. In most cases, these two rival independent countries, on legal pretext used to seize goods belonging to each other (as they were great rivals). Despite the fact that this region was tormented by many wars, there was no single time that Ragusa and Venice engaged in war. Individually, these two cities did not engage in war with other independent regions in the region or elsewhere. Despite the fact that Ragusa and Venice were great enemies and bitter trade competitors stealing or seizing goods from each other, they never even once engaged in any war. This is a clear indication that true democracies never engage other true democracies in war despite the fact that there are factors that may prompt war. However, this is not because they have no conflict or because they are friends, rather it is because they seek mutual peace which restraints them from engaging in war.

    Peace among democracies is one of the highly investigated areas today by scholars with an aim of identifying why there have been no wars between them, especially throughout the 20th century. Scholars have been trying to discover whether democracies are highly peaceful as compared to autocrat of communist countries. It was largely believed that the economic condition or position of a country, its ideology or its domestic situation have contributed to the lack of war between democracies. However, scholars have refuted this claim due to lack of evidence. Well established democracies have had a unique regularity for the past one century with no wars between them. Political scientists have been looking at the possible cause of such mutual peace between these nations, although no concrete explanations have so far been deduced. Critics argue that only a few democracies are full fledged around the world and such democratic states have not been in existence for such a long time. Others argue that there have been no conducive or provocative situations that could have necessitated the democracies to engage in war. Others argue that the level of economic development as well as international trade could have been the reason for lack of war between democracies. Meanwhile, scholars have come up with a list of conflicts that have occurred for the last two centuries to enable them assess the level of electoral freedom and other determinants of democracy thus determining whether democracies have engaged in war among themselves. Studies however show that no democracies have so far engaged in any war with another one, leading to the question of what them not to take such actions. Various theories and explanations have been brought forth to explain this scenario, although most of them still lack empirical evidence.

    Some scholars have argued that lack of such wars has been as a result of geographic differences and locations of these countries making it hard for them to engage in conflicts. However, this has been refuted on the basis that Europe, for example, has the largest number of democracies that are closely located and have not had wars. Economic development has also been advanced as a possibility of lack of wars among the democracies. Most of them today are well endowed with resources and have the largest shares in the international market or the global economy. It is thus argued that since these countries are economically stable, they are able to relate well given that they do not engage in high competition but rather form trade agreement aimed at increasing their wealth. However, this argument has been refuted on the ground that developed countries have had as many wars as the developing and poor countries and as such, endowment with economic resource or lack of it thereof is not a reason or a conclusive explanation for lack of wars between them. While it is true that trade alliances may be a hindrance or an influencing factor on a nations engagement in war, it is not sufficient evidence for absence of war among democracies.

Reasons why democracies do not engage wars against each other
    In the year 1977, Tullock extended the economic analysis domain of revolution and war as the underlying reasons as to why democracies have in the past not engaged and may not in the future engage in wars amongst themselves. Tullock focused his attention on individual choice of a country in the non market setting. He argued that democracy was about public choice rather than the governments choice. He came up with a hypothesis that stated that individuals and governments would only engage in war if they expect to benefit from it with the benefits being more than the costs for engaging in war. Tullock evaluated the government on two dimensions the autocratic type where people do not contribute to the composition of a government and the second dimension as democratic where individuals vote to determine the leadership or government of a country. While deciding on whether to engage in war or not, individuals look at the cost-benefit analysis. War can either be offensive or defensive. The main motivation for offensive war according to Tullock is rent-seeking while external threats act as motivating factor for defensive wary. Countries pursue or initiate offensive and wars with an aim of gaining economically, or other forms of benefits. Democracies are not likely to engage in any of these types of wars for a number of reasons.

    In considering the democratic and autocratic governments, Tullock did not evaluate or consider private wars as both these forms of regimes involve them. Autocratic regimes do not consider the opinions of the people and citizens to do as they are told by the government officials. As such, while making a decision for war, autocrats allocate a bigger share of all the benefits to themselves while the costs are passed on the citizens. An autocrat would also engage in war even when it is not beneficial to him since such costs are born by the citizens who have no right to questions the leaders decision. In democratic administration, this is different. Like in autocratic governments, war costs are also born by the citizens. However, the citizens have power to remove a government from power following an election. People naturally do not like wars and gaining a consensus to engage in war in democracies is difficult. This makes democracies keep off from wars, especially the offensive conflicts. This has been evident in the United States since the 1970s. The country has been engaged in various terrorist attacks from Arab and Muslim countries. In the 1960s, airliner was a major target by terrorists including PELP hijackings, bombings of marine barracks and the United States embassy in 1983 among others. The United States did not engage in defensive war although it could have done so. It was only after the 911 terrorist attack that the country reached a consensus to engage in offensive war. Prior to this period, economic analysts argue that benefits of engaging in a defensive war were very low for the country.

    This argument states that since democracies are less likely to initiate war or even engage in defensive war given their form of government as well as the cost benefit analysis, they are not likely to engage with each other in conflicts hence there are no wars between democracies. Tullock argued that for autocrats the benefits of war are large and are shared among the leadership of a nation while the costs are distributed among the people. Autocrat leadership rarely bears the costs but its people do. In democratic governments, benefits are shared among all individuals making the benefits to be relatively low. Democracies, especially those characterized by free markets, have greater power dispersion among nations and mostly agree with other democracies to eliminate or reduce chances of commencing a war. In most cases, they form alliances that aim at protecting the relationships they make via trade agreements, mostly leading to creation of permanent structures such as constitutional contracts. This leads to formation of another form of democracies within, making it difficult for them to wage war against each other. 

    Another explanation that has been given as to why democracies rarely or never fight against each other is as a result of the politics exercised by these countries. Politics of democracies unlike those of communists and autocrats are unique in that they are open to global scrutiny, thus it leads to formation of long term commitments that make it difficult for them to engage in wars. It is difficult for democracies to deceive, bluff or even plan to launch surprise attacks unlike the case with communists countries. The transparency exercised by democracies in their politics lowers the bargaining position of democrats and this in turn makes their promises to each other more durable and credible as a result of stable democracies. Constitutional rules usually constraint the leaders. Leaders are also constrained by independent officials as well as political costs associated with abandoning commitments entrusted by the public. This paves way for solid bargains to be staged between democracies lowering the likelihood of war. In cases where democracies decide to retaliate on their agreements, they must inform their partners on their intention, giving such partners time to protect themselves and appeal the decision. Agreements between democracies are not risky, unlike in non democratic nations. Via the friendship created, following the various open agreements between democracies, war is avoided and democratic peace is maintained. Democracies also make reliable partners unlike non democrat states and there has been a move to alliances from rivalries characterized by the sealing to bargains that are enduring hence avoiding war. Democracies have led to formation of unipolar kind of government between the democratic countries hence wars are unlikely even in the future among theses countries.

    Citizens influence is another possible reason as to why democracies do not wage war against each other. Some researchers have come up with the explanation that democracies may be forced or compelled to maintain peace among themselves because of the way citizens of these countries believe or think concerning the beliefs and values, general cultural traditions of democracy and norms for behaviour. Usually, in democracies, citizens are able to restrain their leaders from engaging in acts they feel are not in line with their democratic values and norms. Citizens are afraid of war as nothing much seems to come out of war but death of innocent people and destruction of property. As a result, these citizens through such beliefs influence or restrain their leaders from engaging in either defensive or offensive wars. Citizens in democratic countries also believe in equality of all individuals and human rights. People in most democracies believe that all citizens should be protected by the law and not exposed to unnecessary dangers, such as war. Through these commonly held believes of citizens from democratic nations, it is difficult for such nations to engage in war. Citizens in democracies believe in negotiations, in solving whatever disagreements and disputes that may arise between nations. This is true and quite evident in most democracies today. Recently, Britain announced that it would be adding 500 soldiers to Afghanistan while the United States announced it would be adding 30,000 soldiers to this country. This has been met with mixed reactions with over 70 of citizens from these two superpowers calling for immediate withdrawal of those already in this war. Leaders making war decisions in democracies are viewed as being inhumane and this could be a reason as to why no wars have been recorded among the democracies. In non democratic nations, leaders make decisions with little regard or no regard at all of the opinions of their citizens. War is viewed as the normal way of solving issues hence there are many offensive and defensive wars in such countries.

    It is interesting to note that for the last two centuries, there has not been any war between the democracies in Europe and in the United States. Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, was the first man to come up with the argument that wars between democracies were unlikely. Despite the fact that his explanations have been refuted lately, his concept still remains viable and a major source of debate today. Many researchers, authors and political scientists have formulated several explanations as to why democracies do not engage with each other in war. The common arguments include cost-benefit analysis, values, norms, and believes that are common among citizens in democratic nations, formation of strategic alliances that have strengthened the democracies relationships, form of politics that allows for transparency and scrutiny by other democracies, and citizens influence on the leadership of their nations. While these explanations serve to affirm the notion that democracies do not fight other democracies, no single explanation has been widely accepted as the major reason by all researchers.