Latest news with #Whigs
News18
07-08-2025
- Politics
- News18
Recalling Sir Surendranath Banerjea, India's First ‘National' Leader On His Death Centenary
Banerjea, who personified the era of emergence of national consciousness in modern India, also left behind an eminently readable account of this transformation. Political partisanship vitiating the dispassionate reading of history is not a new thing. Philosopher David Hume's The History of England (in Six Volumes), particularly its first volume on the House of Tudors, had to suffer the ire of the Whigs who controlled state apparatus in Britain in the mid-18th century. Nonetheless, it implied that the critics had chosen to actually read Hume's fat volume dealing with events that were already two centuries older. In contemporary India, we find ignorance and confusion about events that are a century to two centuries old. This is possibly because it was the colonial era. However, grasping that period is vital, if we were to understand the institutional underpinnings of our republic. We often boast about, and for good reasons, India's social and cultural continuity, across the ages. However, we overlook political discontinuity due to disruptions in history. The two prominent markers are establishment of Delhi Sultanate (1206) and the Regulating Act, 1773. The political institutions of medieval India did not evolve from those of ancient India, and similarly the political institutions of modern India did not emerge from those of medieval India. However, the political institutions and legal system of independent India could easily be traced to colonial India. Even the Constitution of India (1949) derived many of its provisions from the Government of India Act, 1935. The biggest changeover that marked British rule was the establishment of an impersonal government. This distinguished it from the personal rule in Indian princely states whether they were Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs. Though the duopoly of Secretary of State based in England and Governor General based in India remained a constant feature between 1858 and 1947, the enlargement of legislative council (later bicameralism of Legislative Assembly and Council of States) and elections etc meant that there was planned progression whereas more power was delegated to the Indians. This was a result of a sustained campaign built by Indian leaders, which kept the pressure on the government. We interpret the freedom movement as a struggle to get rid of British rule. This was the position of revolutionaries, who left the future ruling mechanism of India undefined. The Indian National Congress adopted this 'get rid of British' stance only in 1929 in the form of Purna Swaraj Resolution at the Lahore session. It is another thing that they re-entered participatory politics in 1934, and continued to play the game according to the rules of the game until India obtained independence in 1947. The only exception was Quit India 1942 that was provoked by apprehension of Japanese attack on India. The resignation of the Congress ministries in eight provinces in 1939 did not make a material difference. The early leaders of the Congress had a different take on India's political emancipation. They aimed for 'Self-Rule", later called 'Swaraj", still later 'Home Rule", through attainment of representative government. Their method was political reforms (also called constitutional reforms) whereby more Indians were incorporated into the Governor General's Legislative Council (and provincial councils). Its impact would have been to gradually acquire more power over political decisions. This method had a two-fold advantage a) making the British rulers more accountable and responsive b) developing a politically mature public opinion in the country. However, public outreach was as important as marshalling facts and figures to argue against and persuade the rulers. It was here that Surendranath Banerjea (1848-1925)—whose death centenary falls on August 6—played the foremost part. He might aptly be called India's first 'national" leader. He was the first political leader to take advantage of the growing railway network to reach out to different parts of India. His real USP was his oratorical skill, at a time when public meetings were becoming popular events. He was fittingly described as the 'trumpet orator of India". There is a notion that the Indian National Congress (estd.1885) was founded by a foreigner viz. Allan Octavian Hume, the British civil servant and ornithologist. This fact is often invoked by its detractors to claim that the Congress could never be patriotic. The truth is the Indian National Congress, which until 1907 was an annual event rather than any organisation, was a natural culmination of various local associations founded in different parts of India viz. British Indian Association (Calcutta), Bombay Association (Bombay), Sarvajanik Sabha (Poona), Mahajan Sabha (Madras), Sindh Sabha (Karachi) and Indian Association (Calcutta) etc. As the advent and growth of the railways resolved the problem of mobility, it became easier for them to converge on a national platform. The groundwork was actually laid by Surendranath Banerjea through his all-India tours in 1877-78 wherein he helped incubate several local branches of Indian Association for forging of mutual ties. Banerjea, along with Ananda Mohan Bose, had founded the Indian Association at Calcutta in 1876. It was formed to agitate against the reduction of minimum age in civil services exam, which Banerjea felt was a ploy to exclude Indians from the civil services. The civil service agitation drew huge response from various parts of India. In 1879, the Indian Association sent Lal Mohun Ghose as its representative to Britain, who carried with him a bunch of petitions, received from all over India due to the campaign. Ghose's speaking tour of England was highly successful. He, in particular, emphasised that the absence of adequate and genuine representation of Indians in the Legislative Council hampered the resolution of India's grievances and optimal policy making. Banerjea should be acknowledged as the true founder of the Indian National Congress. Not only was the word 'Congress" used by him (as against Hume who used the word 'Union") but more importantly he created the ground-work for this national congregation. Banerjea, after his release from prison in a contempt case, had resolved to create a National Fund for political agitation on constitutional lines in India. Over ten thousand people attended a meeting in Calcutta on July 17, 1883 where he announced this idea. The Ilbert Bill controversy in 1883, wherein the British community in India opposed a progressive piece of legislation, mobilized the Indian opinion. Banerjea organised the first National Conference in Calcutta during December 28-30, 1883. The issues raised therein e.g. representative councils or self government, general & technical education, separation from judicial from executive in the administration of criminal justice, and greater employment of Indians in public service anticipated those later espoused by the Congress. Two years later, the second National Conference was held at Calcutta during December 25-27, 1885. It drew delegates from Meerut, Benaras, Allahabad and Bombay in addition to Bengal. This, however, prevented him from attending the first session of the Indian National Congress at Bombay held during the same week. Banerjea's notes for the first National Conference (1883) were used in the preparatory meeting of the Congress that had taken place at Madras. However, thereafter, Banerjea attended all sessions of the Congress. In 1890, Banerjea toured Britain as part of the five-member delegation for Congress' overseas outreach activity—everybody at his own cost. It was during this tour he clinched the Oxford Union Debate on May 22, 1890 (long before Shashi Tharoor in 2015!) defeating Lord Hugh Cecil on the motion 'That this House views with regret the non-recognition of the elective principles in Indian Council Bill now before Parliament". His speaking tour of England was highly successful. He advocated that the members of legislative councils should be chosen through election rather than nomination. On returning to India, his felicitation ceremony at Framji Cowasji Institute at Bombay on July 6, 1890 was mobbed leading to a minor stampede. The enactment of Indian Councils Act, 1892 made the legislative and provincial councils more representative besides giving members more right. In 1895, Banerjea was chosen as the President of the Congress held at Poona (Pune). His Presidential Address lasted for more than four hours, during which he spoke without referring to any written note. He was again nominated as the President at the Ahmedabad session in 1902. In 1905, he played a leading role in organizing a protest against partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon. He initiated the Swadeshi vow of using only ingeniously produced goods. He was one of the founders of 'Banga Luxmi Cotton Mill' at Serampore (Hooghly district), which became an arm of Swadeshi production. One of the memorable contributions of Banerjea was his memoirs viz. A Nation in Making: Being Reminiscence of Fifty Years in Public Life (1921). It is a must read for anybody wanting to understand the shaping of modern India and the beginning of the freedom movement in this country. While dedicating the book to the memory of the founders and early builders of the Indian National Congress, the author was apprehensive that the present generation was at a risk to forget their achievements. If that was the situation a 100 years ago, when Gandhi reigned supreme, the predicament today can be well-understood. Banerjea belonged to the Moderate group inside the Congress. However, unlike other Moderate leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale etc, he espoused blazing patriotism. He attributes excellence in oratory to patriotism. 'Let no one aspire to be an orator", says Banerjea, 'who does not love his country, lover her indeed with a true and soul-absorbing love. Country first, all other things next is the creed of the orator" (A Nation in Making, P.140). Quite early in his career he popularised Mazzini, the prophet of Italian Unification, in India through his speeches. Yet, he was never an extremist or revolutionary. In 1918, he had broken ranks with the Congress over Home Rule question, and formed the All India Moderates Conference. In his Presidential Address in Bombay on November 1, 1918, he explained his support to moderate principles as against revolution. 'We have witnessed nameless horrors of revolutions in France, in Russia, and in other countries, how too often they have followed by reaction and repression and enthronement of despotic authority". In describing the freedom movement, we tend to emphasise freedom from British clutches alone, but take the establishment of Parliamentary democracy in independent India for granted. Banerjea cautioned us that veering from the path of constitutionalism could also lead India to a slippery path of authoritarianism. top videos View all Surendranath Banerjea's elucidation of the constitutional basis of India's freedom struggle explains how India not only became free but became a Parliamentary democracy. The writer is author of the book 'The Microphone Men: How Orators Created a Modern India' (2019) and an independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views herein are his personal. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 07, 2025, 16:15 IST News opinion Opinion | Recalling Sir Surendranath Banerjea, India's First 'National' Leader On His Death Centenary Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hill
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Third parties are a fool's errand in America, and Elon Musk is just the latest fool
Like a bad penny, the idea of a third party regularly shows up in American political discourse. It never comes to anything. Seemingly smart people sign up for these doomed efforts. That Elon Musk, Andrew Yang and Mark Cuban are piling in only proves that intelligence in business and engineering is rarely portable into politics. Opportunistically, Yang wants to team up with Musk, but says he wants to know 'what the path looks like.' How about 'dead end?' And it's not because of any conspiracy — although yes, institutions in power do tend to develop a survival instinct. Third parties crash and burn in America because our form of government is structured for a two-party system. To have viable third parties will require changing the Constitution — no easy task. The founding fathers certainly did not anticipate this result. But their creation — first-past-the-post winners elected geographically in states or districts — naturally favors two parties. Third parties tend to become wasted protest votes and inevitably wither away. When they do become a political force, they either replace one of the major parties, have their ideas absorbed by one (or both) of those two parties, or become regional. Of course, third parties have popped up from time to time in America. The Republican Party started as one. As a firmly abolitionist party, the Republican Party swept away the feckless Whigs in the 1850s. In the late 19th century, the Populist Party rose out of the Great Plains. But in 1896, Democrat William Jennings Bryan stole their thunder and their platform, with the Populists mostly drifting into the Democratic Party. Later, the Progressives in the 20th century straddled both parties up to the Great Depression, when they too mostly became Democrats. The last third-party gasp was Ross Perot's Reform Party. Perot had his moment in 1992 but cracked under the pressure. His movement was too dependent on his personality and the national deficit as an issue. When these failed, Reform flamed out. But this experience is not uniquely American. Both Britain and Canada show how this electoral structure pushes political systems to two parties. Britain has been dominated by two parties since the advent of political parties, with third parties occasionally nosing their way into coalitions. At first it was the Conservatives and the Liberals (starting as Whigs). Then, the early 20th century saw the rise of the more left-wing Labour Party. But Labour did not become a third wheel — it replaced the Liberals, who went from leading the government in 1910 with 274 seats to just 59 seats by 1929. While the party now known as the Liberal Democrats have occasionally had bursts of electoral success, they have not been able to maintain momentum. They grabbed 57 seats in 2010 and entered into coalition with the Conservatives, only to collapse to just 8 seats in the next election, wiped out by a geographic party, the Scottish National Party. And it is only these geographically based parties that can gain representation. Despite never gaining more than 5 percent of the British national vote, the SNP has been able to regularly outperform the Liberals. In 2017, with less than half the votes of the Liberals, the SNP gained 35 seats to the Liberals' 12. Canada demonstrates a similar dynamic with the same system as Britain. Again, Conservatives and Liberals have faced off against each other for more than a century. But two other parties have been part of the political story: the New Democratic Party, a leftist national party and Bloc Québécois, a regional party. Like Labour, the New Democratic Party rose up to challenge the Liberals from the left. Unlike Labour, it failed to replace them when it had the chance. In 2011, the NDP outpolled the Liberals and gained 103 seats to the Liberals' 34, but the next election, the party collapsed to just 44 seats. It has only weakened from there, holding just seven seats after the latest election. The Bloc has mostly stayed relevant, despite never gaining more than 10 percent of the vote. It currently has 22 seats, holding the balance of power in the Canadian parliament, with the Liberals (169 seats) just short of a majority. And that is the dynamic that stymies third parties while keeping regional parties relevant. Being a geographic also-ran without proportional representation is a disaster. With voters scattered across the country and thus diluted in each district, third parties cannot win seats, whether parliamentary, congressional or in the Electoral College. Voters don't like wasting their votes and tend to drop out or go to the least objectionable major party. In parliamentary systems, holding the few seats for a coalition government means a third party can bargain for some executive power. But in the American federal system, third parties have no power in the executive branch and can only, at best, trade votes in Congress, if needed. The independents who do get elected to the House and Senate are from small states with an independent voting streak. Alaska, Maine and Vermont — out-of-the-way states with small electorates — have a record of electing independents. However, in their current iteration, it's worth noting that the two independents, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) are independents in name only. They caucus with the Democrats and vote lockstep with them on everything. When former Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin ( and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) tried to broker centrist compromises, King and Sanders were nowhere to be found. If Musk, Yang and Cuban are as smart as they think they are, they would either plot to replace or take over one of the two major parties. Barring that, they could put together an advocacy group that would involve itself in Republican and Democratic primaries, supporting candidates who circle around a coherent platform. Their group would be a real nonpartisan organization, not the fake 'unbiased' PACs that grow like weeds in Washington. The bottom line is that Musk's America Party will eventually go the same way as No Labels and the Forward Party if it follows the same failed playbook — forward to nowhere. Keith Naughton, a longtime Republican political consultant, is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm, and a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant.
Los Angeles Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Elon Musk's America Party is a long shot
'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,' Elon Musk declared on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). Another billionaire quickly replied on his social media platform, 'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,' President Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday night. 'He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States.' If I had to guess, Elon Musk's America Party will go nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even file the required paperwork — the amount is so large it could probably be seen from space. And that's just one of the daunting challenges facing third parties. Still, Trump is wrong. He is, after all, the head of the most successful third party in American history. The Republican Party was born in Ripon, Wis., in 1854. Two years later, the Republican candidate for president, John Frémont, carried 11 (out of 31) states. Four years after that, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, and the Whigs soon went the way of the dinosaurs. But other than that, lasting success — if measured by capturing the White House or being a major force beyond an election cycle or two — the record of third parties is not great. The primary reason for this is structural. Our first-past-the-post system for declaring a winner makes voting third party seem like a wasted vote. But that doesn't mean third parties don't matter. Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Bull Moose Party split the Republicans and put Woodrow Wilson (the worst president of the 20th century) in office. People still debate whether Ross Perot's Reform Party doomed George H.W. Bush's 1992 reelection; Ralph Nader's 2000 Green Party run almost certainly cost Al Gore Florida, and hence the electoral college and the presidency. That's why political historian Richard Hofstadter's famous verdict on third parties is so enduring: 'Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die.' Musk is ill-suited to replay the role of Perot, although both fit the description 'erratic billionaire.' As an immigrant, Musk can't run for president himself, as Perot did. This matters because if Musk is serious about the America Party, he'll have to find quality candidates to carry its banner. Given his toxicity among Democrats, and Trump's ongoing effort to anathematize him, that might prove difficult. The mid-19th century success of what was then a Grand New Party stemmed from the split among the Whigs over slavery, and slavery was the defining issue of the times. The country needed an anti-slavery party. The Republican Party was created to meet market demand. You could say the same in 2025; the demand is there. A majority of Americans have wanted a third party for decades. But desire is not enough. A third party's success will be defined by specific issues. Is it for or against abortion rights? Does it see debt and deficits as Musk does (and I do too) or as Bernie Sanders does? We don't know the specifics yet, or if the America Party will even get that far. Musk appears to believe that the country is much less divided on issues than the parties and media would have us believe. I think there's something to that. The intense partisan polarization of the last quarter-century is driven less by ideological commitment than by tribalized hatred of Republicans and Democrats for the other party. When presidents change their party's policy stances, most partisans change with them. For instance, Trump changed the GOP's position on trade, and formerly pro-trade Republicans moved with him. And in a sense so have Democrats, although in the opposite direction. When Trump is for something, many Democrats suddenly oppose it. Hyperpartisans want hyperpartisanship. But Musk's theory is that there is a middle 60% or 70% sufficiently sick of hyperpartisanship to stick their thumbs in the eyes of both parties. That's where I'm skeptical. Still, Musk's strategy to test the proposition seems like the right one. He says the America Party will concentrate 'on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts.' Given the incredibly narrow margins in Congress, if those contests break for Musk it could be enough to profoundly change the political dynamics in both houses. If decisive votes for legislation were held by America Party members, that translates to enormous power to shape legislation. Forcing Congress to get back into the business of crossing party lines to form factional coalitions would be a very healthy improvement. Again, the actual issues would matter enormously, as does Musk's ability to harness his outrage into organizing a party structure. But popular dissatisfaction with Democrats and Republicans is so great, stinging each might actually work for just enough candidates to matter. @JonahDispatch
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ex-Democratic leader warns party is 'dying' as key issues leave voters wanting 'new way forward'
Former California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero warned Tuesday that the party she once called home is "on its last stand," accusing its members of abandoning common sense and core American values in favor of identity politics. "It is a dying party. It will go the way of the Whigs in a century past," she said while appearing on "Fox & Friends First." "The new way forward is an America-first party, the Republican Party under Donald Trump… This is really a new party, and it's one that recognizes that borders matter, citizenship matters, safety for all [matters]. We care about the content of one's character much more than we care about the color of our skin, and across the board… we are there together to say, 'Stop the nonsense. Speak common sense.'" Former Democrat Hill Staffers Challenge The Aging Establishment In Congress: Report Romero said many former Democrats – Tulsi Gabbard, Leo Terrell, RFK, Jr. and herself included – tried to be voices for reform within the party, but saw the writing on the wall and ultimately resigned themselves to leaving altogether. Her comments lambasting Democrats came after Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman bucked his party over the border and antisemitism during a Fox Nation-hosted debate with his Republican colleague Sen. Dave McCormick on Monday. Read On The Fox News App "Antisemitism [is] out of control… Building tent cities on a campus and terrorizing and intimidating Jewish students – that's not free speech, and now we've lost the argument in parts of my party," he conceded. Biden Cover-up Scandal Could Usher In New Era Of Republican Dominance "Our party did not handle the border appropriately. Look at the numbers: 267,000, 300,000 people showing up at our border. Now that's unacceptable and that's a national security issue and that is chaos." Romero applauded the Keystone State lawmakers for showcasing a commitment to working across the aisle in a way she wishes more politicians would consider. "Sadly, Democrats are still caught in that web, the ideology of identity politics, and it [working across the aisle] has not yet taken root," she Here To Join Fox Nation "They still stand up and scream that everybody's a Nazi, everybody's racist. Or still defend open borders, deny the rampant antisemitism, and refuse to stand up for America first. But hopefully, with the Fetterman-McCormick discussion debate, I hope it really sends a message across the country that this is what the American people want – for our elected officials to grow up, to listen to each other, and work with each other for Americans."Original article source: Ex-Democratic leader warns party is 'dying' as key issues leave voters wanting 'new way forward'
Boston Globe
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
What the Whigs can teach us
Today the Whigs are regarded as a fusty barnacle on American history, a long-ago movement banished to historical oblivion. But the historian Allen Guelzo has The party took its name from the British Whigs, themselves formed to provide a legislative counterpoint to powerful executive rule, in their case the monarchy. For nearly two centuries, the Whigs — the term is derived from the Scottish Gaelic name for a horse thief — sought a series of substantial transformations in the political culture of Britain. They sought to empower the middle class, abolish slavery, and reform the country's political system, then an untidy and undemocratic amalgam of legislative districts known as 'rotten boroughs' that were the power centers of land owners and other aristocrats. Advertisement The American Whigs were motivated by the muscular presidency of Andrew Jackson, so lionized by President Donald Trump that he placed a portrait of the seventh president in the Oval Office in both his terms. The Whigs' gloom over Jackson's overreach — they regarded his 1829-1837 White House tenure as years of executive tyranny — prompted them to seek a new path to restore an old balance. Advertisement Why the need for a new Whig party? Though only four months old, Trump's second administration is marked by unprecedented attempts to exert executive power and a flurry of executive orders that bypass Capitol Hill. Only a handful of measures have been approved by Congress, which has ceded not only the initiative in American politics but also many of its roles. Though Congress has Constitutional responsibilities in trade — and two once-powerful subcommittees specifically devoted to the issue — Trump has unilaterally imposed tariffs on friends, trading partners, and military and commercial foes alike. Though independent agencies created by Congress are historically, and legally, regarded as impervious to presidential interference, Trump has attacked them, removed their directors, and curtailed their remits. And earlier this month, the head of the executive branch summarily removed the leader of an institution called the Library of Congress . President Donald Trump arrived to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress on March 4. KENNY HOLSTON/NYT This has occurred while Congress slept. The Democrats might have mounted an aggressive opposition to Trump had they not been in the minority in both chambers and struggling to reshape their tactics and their message. Advertisement 'The American system has shared powers as much as a separation of powers,' Andrew Ballard, a Florida State University political scientist, said in an interview. 'But Congress has done just about nothing. Congress has to have incentive to share power or wrestle back some of its policy-making role from the executive. Right now they don't and seem happy with the outcomes. They haven't yet seen that the administration has crossed some line they cannot countenance.' Indeed, the eclipse of Congress has been one of the distinctive qualities of the era. 'The lack of major legislation is not because Mr. Trump failed but because he has not even bothered to try,' the conservative Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial. 'Even though his own Republican Party controls both houses of Congress, the president has all but disregarded Capitol Hill so far.…Executive orders feed his appetite for instant action, while enacting legislation can involve arduous and time-consuming negotiations.' The 19th-century Whigs present an appealing prototype for moderate Democrats seeking a way out of their paralysis and for Republicans impatient with, or horrified by, the Trump ascendancy. They grew out of a debate that, Michael F. Holt wrote in his 1999 'Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party,' was 'about the proper character of a republican society, that is, about what social and economic arrangements would best sustain citizens' virtue, their commitment to the public good or commonweal.' These are precisely the questions in the air today. Americans sharing those concerns gathered under the Whig banner 'focused on its everlasting basic principle: opposition to executive usurpation in general' — another analog to today. Advertisement Sean Wilentz's characterization of the Whigs in his 2016 'The Politicians and the Egalitarians' demonstrates the breadth of the 19th-century party and leads us to wonder if a 21st-century version, shorn of some of the original party's constituencies, might be appropriate for our own time. The Whigs, he wrote, were 'a national coalition dominated by pro-business conservatives, humanitarian reformers, Christian evangelicals, supporters of federally backed economic developments and moderate Southern planters.' No historical comparison works completely, or even neatly. Susan Hanssen of the University of Dallas has noted that Trump has some Whig characteristics, particularly his embrace of tariffs. The Whigs didn't endure as a powerful entity. Weakened by sectional divisions growing out of fevered debate over slavery, they collapsed soon after their 1852 presidential nominee, Winfield Scott, was soundly defeated by Franklin Pierce. In their death were the political nutrients that helped nourish the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. Debates about the limits of presidential power have been a hardy American perennial. The Whig philosophy was perhaps best expressed by William Henry Harrison, the party's first president, who, in a reference to Jackson and President Martin Van Buren, said that considering one person 'the source from which all the measures of government should emanate is degrading to the republic.' The new Whigs could steal that quote as the founding statement of their own party. This column first appeared in , Globe Opinion's free weekly newsletter about local and national politics. If you'd like to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up . Advertisement David Shribman is a nationally syndicated columnist. He can be reached at
