Reality Denial Disorder

Once a rich politician, arch-conservative

Clinging to blind partisan dogmas, hallucinative,

Compelled always entirely to misstate

And implacably unable to play straight,

Became incredibly, regressively, degenerative.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 "Is something wrong with the Senator?" asked the new intern of an aide to the senator.

"Waddaya mean?" said the older and far wiser aide.

"Well, I've only been here a few weeks I know, but it sure seems like he doesn't pay much attention to things, or what people tell him.

"Like what?"

"Well, like I spent over three weeks doing research for him on this National Health Act bill.  He just looked at the cover page on my report and threw it in the trash.  I haven't got much experience under my belt yet, but I do have my master's degree in political science and graduated #2 in my class.  I do know how to bear down and do good, solid, factual research."

"Oh that," said the more senior aide.  "He probably just doesn't like whatever real facts you uncovered.  It  was nothing against you personally, or your work."

"You mean the Senator doesn't care about facts?" asked the intern incredulously.

"Nah," said the aide.  "Not unless they agree with his own doctrine he doesn't. And, like always, his doctrine is strictly in line with that of his major campaign contributors.  My guess is the Senator's just trying to train you into his ways.  You know, he's been in Washington a long time now and has developed a pretty bad case of RDD."

"RDD?  What the hell is that?"

What's RDD?  Oh hell.  I guess you ARE still pretty wet behind the ears, aren't you?  RDD is "Reality Denial Disorder".  It's a very common disease, and almost all top politicians get it by their second  terms in office.  Damned few of them don't.  Their party doesn't matter.   It's pretty serious and clouds their judgement and affects their personal lives too.   Else, why would anyone ignore obvious cause and effect realities to pick up some queer in a public restroom or fly off to Argentina to meet some bimbo?  RDD can be pretty serious all right."

"Reality Denial Disorder?  I never heard of it!" said astonished intern.  Is it like a neurological disease?"

"Well, I don't know if there have been any formal studies on RDD or not, but everyone who's been around politicians any time at all time knows about it - and that's what we call it.  It's a lot like ADD - Attention Deficit Disorder.  You know, they just can't or won't get their minds around anything not in line with their own dogma.  It's a psychological impossibility for them."

"RDD!" mused the intern.  "Well, I guess I must still have a lot to learn."

"Oh yes," replied the aide.  "There's all kinds of things to learn about our senator.  Important things.  For example, he also has HPD, NPD, and worst of all maybe, GCD!"

The intern stared at the aide in dismay.  "What in hell is all that?" he implored.

"I guess I'm gonna need to get you a book." the aide replied.  "HPD is "Histrionic Personality Disorder".  You know, when someone gets all dramatic and works up an artificial passion.  NPD of course is "Narcissistic Personality Disorder", which is self-explanatory and pretty damned bad all by itself, but when it comes coupled with GCD, it's almost impossible to deal with. GCD is "God Complex Disorder" if you don't know that one.  Our senator has it all.  He's such a major pain in the ass, if I weren't trying to work myself up to a lobbyist job, I'd tell him 'sayonara' and 'kiss my ass' today."

"Well, I'm sure glad you enlightened me on all this." said the intern.  "In fact, right now I feel like I've just come down with a bad case of HWD myself."

"HWD?"  asked the aide.  "That's a new one on me.  What in hell is that?"

"Oh hell, you know." said the intern.  "That's that good old  'Hank Williams Disorder'." 

"I'm moving on!"

Irony Versus The Art of Disinformation

(Click on photo to enlarge)

The caption beneath the picture of the glacier reads:

"TAKU GLACIER, ALASKA, IS A RIVER OF ICE STRETCHING 270 SQUARE MILES, YET THE PETROLEUM ENERGY HUMBLE SUPPLES AMERICA COULD MELT IT AT THE RATE OF 7 MILLIONS TONS A DAY!"

Perhaps a more prophetic ad was never run in history:   In 1962 Humble Oil ran a two-page ad spread in Life Magazine.  Humble merged with Standard Oil to become the oil industry giant EXXON, now EXXON-MOBIL.  Blogger David Roberts places this one in the running for "All Time Millenial Award for Maximum Irony".   I totally agree!

The ad itself reads as follows:

"EACH DAY HUMBLE SUPPLIES ENOUGH ENERGY TO MELT 7 MILLION TONS OF GLACIER!


This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries.  yet, the petroleum energy Humble supplies -  if converted into heat - could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second!  To meet the nation's growing needs for energy, Humble has applied science to nature's resources to become America's Leading Energy Company.  Working wonders with oil through research, Humble provides energy in many forms - to help heat our homes, power our transportation, and to furnish industry with a great variety of versatile chemicals.  Stop at a Humble station for new Enco Extra gasoline, and see why the "Happy Motoring" Sign is the Worlds First Choice!"

The supreme irony is that EXXON-MOBIL is the same company which spent millions to disparage the idea of mankind cause climate change.  Using proven tobacco industry tactics, EXXON financed (even founded!) 'think tanks' with many millions of dollars to dispute scientific findings and muddy the waters over this issue.  The right-wing big business lobby is still at it today, using any means fair or foul to cast doubt over an issue upon which about 95% of all scientists agree.

Hackers recently got into computers at a legitimate climate change research center.   Emails and other documents stolen from there were then published  - in Russia of all places.  The attempt is to show a 'coverup' by scientists who agree on human influenced climate change - a huge majority of all scientists - and further muddy the waters.

The timing of this release of course,  has no relevance to the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference scheduled to begin December 7, 2009.  Yeah right.  Just like the timings of the current releases of new recommendations for the frequency for pap smears or breast cancer exams has no relevance to the national health care debate or the passing of the National Health Act.

Can we, the public, ever learn to effectively counter all the billions of 'influence dollars' spent by corporate vested interests?  Not bloody likely given recent history!

On Becoming Non-Republican

I've never joined a political party, but I used to think I was more Republican than anything else. I voted for the occasional Democrat, yes.   I had great respect for what I read of Harry Truman who was before my time.  But the preponderance of my votes over the years went to Republicans, including more than once I  pulled the 'straight Republican' lever in the booth.   Republicans seemed to talk more my way and I eventually began to think of myself as 'Republican' even though I never formally joined the party.

I was cheered in the early 80's when my neighbor in New Bern, North Carolina was elected city mayor as a Democrat, and the very next day switched parties.   I did wonder a little at the time at the oddness of that.  It did seem a bit on the duplicitous side - but no matter.  Republicans seemed more like me, and therefore, her becoming one seemed justified.   I ignored the duplicity.

Then I moved to Alaska - a solidly 'Red State' then and now, almost.  I didn't move there because it was a Republican state, but didn't mind that either.  The people I met seemed more open and natural than the ones I'd known back east.  I think it's just the  'western' way.  I lived in a small island village in southeast Alaska and loved it.  We were in the midst of the largest national forest in the country - the Tongass National Forest.  I worked everyday with a guy who cheerfully identified himself as a 'tree hugger', and an officer in a small environmental group interested in protections for the forest.  He invited me to a meeting.  I didn't think I had much in common with the tree and bunny hugger crowds but went anyway out of curiosity.

The people I met at the first meeting - only a half dozen or so active folks - seemed salt of the earth and passionately dedicated to their cause.  There was a carpenter, a fisherman's wife, a couple commercial fishermen, a shipbuilder, a traveling fruit and vegetable trucker, a retired wildlife biologist and a few others.  Most were solid members of the local community and just plain folks.   One woman was the real spark plug and the cohesive glue holding the group together.  As an ex-Forest Service employee she had inside knowledge of how things worked in that peculiar bureaucracy. She was also one of the bravest people I ever knew.  In the interests of privacy, I'll simply call her 'Astra' here, after the Greek goddess of justice.

As an outsider from back east I was viewed with some suspicion, but I was intrigued and came to more meetings, eventually joining the group and becoming involved.  A year or so later I even became a vocal activist too and an officer of the group.  How did this come about?

At the time there were two huge pulp mills in the Tongass region, one of which was Japanese owned.  Both were multi-national corporations holding 'sweetheart' deals with the Forest  Service in the form of long-term contracts (fifty years!).   When the pertinent facts were boiled down to reality, particularly the fiscal ones, the stark result was the virtual corporate rape of a US national forest at American taxpayers' expense.  At the time, every timber industry job on the Tongass National Forest ended up  costing the US taxpayer $40,000 to $60,000.  Today it is even higher - much higher. As an actual, real fiscally conservative American I could not understand this.

But the timber industry, like all resource extraction industries maintains a powerful lobby.  The entire Alaska congressional delegation - all Republican at the time - were all doing the bidding of timber, oil and mining interests. They were vocal and strident in their defense of big  timber interests.  But,  American taxpayers were (and still are) being cheated at their own expense.  A real tragedy was that precious irreplaceable old-growth forests, valuable for lumber, were being chipped up to make toilet paper.  Trees not chipped up were shipped 'in-the-round' overseas to Japan and Korea. There was little effort to add value to the commodity.  Alaska, and the Tongass National Forest were treated as part of a third world country - no American jobs were involved beyond the acts of felling and transporting the timber,  and the taxpayer subsidized acts of building the access roads.

After I moved to Alaska also came Newt Gingrich's  'Contract With America' and the 'conservative Republican' capture of Congress.  If things were bad before they quickly got worse.  The final straw for me was when Gingrich as Speaker of the House  threatened to 'train wreck' and shutdown the US government over the budget - and partly did so in fact.  Apparently that was too much for lots of others too and Gingrich was eventually forced to resign as Speaker.  Roundly castigated, Gingrich  petulantly gave up his house seat and quit Congress altogether.  Nor was he the only one.  A whole slew of Republicans left Congress voluntarily (i.e., QUIT) saying it was 'no longer any fun' under a Democratic administration.  Incidentally, I've noticed the same phenomenon of Republican quitters lately too, with Sarah Palin being a prime example.

I contrasted the so-called conservative Republicans with Astra,  the head of our little environmental group.  Here was a person, an otherwise unexceptional wife and mother, who sacrificed most of her personal time, not a little money, and heroically faced a great deal animosity and slandering by powerful and ruthless forces arrayed against her.  She was publicly attacked in the local and regional papers, ostracized by many in the community and continuously threatened with lawsuits known as 'slap suits' designed to discourage opposition to the corporate rape of our publicly owned forest.   Specialists were hired by the industry group, 'Alaska Forest Association' to form opposition groups disguised as 'grassroots' organizations.   Local loggers and other industry employees joined up and held loud meetings, much like the 'Teabaggers' of today.  Some even physically threatened Astra and her family with destruction of her property, assault, personal injury and death.  Yet she persevered through it all.  As I said, she is one of the bravest people I ever met.

But, Astra was very effective, using every legal option available to her, including the support of major national and regional environmental groups.  Today, because of their efforts, those two huge pulp mills are gone from the Tongass National Forest, and some of the timber harvest there now receives at least a modicum of value added processing.  With the mills gone, the level of harvest is now down to about 10% of its former volume, although still very heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.  At least the old growth forests left aren't being slaughtered wholesale to make toilet paper anymore.  In my mind Astra is a genuine hero.

Through Astra's example, and with the scales falling from my eyes,  today when I see the label 'Republican' my reaction is to look the other way.  At my core I'm a moderate.  I've watched the GOP be captured by radical fringers intent on ridding the party of all moderate or progressive elements.   The end result is the GOP morphing into a club for an weird assortment of non-intellectual, belligerent southerners, evangelicals, militia types and disgruntled westerners who regard thoughtful deliberation with anyone as a social disease. And, my heretofore 'middle of the road' leanings are now considered by GOPers as 'liberal', 'socialist' and worse.  So be it.  The GOP 'Big Tent' of yore is now down to a doll house on the edge of a cliff. Fortunately for everyone,  I believe that to be a decidedly self-limiting situation.

Today's GOP extremism reminds me of the words of comedian Pat Paulsen who only half-jokingly 'ran for president' in Richard Nixon's time as a member of the STAG party (Straight Talking American Government).   When asked if he considered himself 'left-wing or right-wing', Paulsen's priceless and very apt response was:

"Well actually, I'm kind of a middle-of-the-bird.  I've always felt that if you have too much left-wing or too much right-wing, all you do is fly around in circles."

The Quitter who Twittered

"THE DIM-WITTED TWITTER"

There was once a dim witted twit who twittered,
She quitted her governor's job with all its glitter.
And, promised to never, ever leave Twitter.
But soon did so with nary a back-look nor  titter.
Then, later behold! About-faced and unquitted Twitter!

Yes, this dim-witted twit recanted and re-twittered,
She twittered about this and that and the other,
Death panels, Russia and Obama's mother.
Hoping everyone forgot the job so blithely quittered.

Oh, she twittered, and twittered and twittered,
On subjects she hardly knew quit from quinolla,
She expounded on Levi, McCain, Trig and Angola.
On Sesame, governments, church and pipefitters.

She shamefully twittered and twittered and twittered,
While the country grew quite weary and so jittered,
All tired of her nonsense and now sadly embittered,
While the sheen on her star dimmed and quite flittered.

Nonetheless, she persistently, mindlessly twittered,
Ignoring all pleas, imprecations and screams,
Plugging always her twisted, evangelical dreams,
Until husband Todd so wanted to jump up and hit her.

May we never hear again all those perfidious twitters,
Playing so to fears, paranoia, religion and bitters,
Plainly,  insanely, chasing her own lost fame and glitters,
Yes, next time give us at least a rational bullshitter!

The Real Golden Rule: 'Those with the Gold, rule'

Special Interest Money Buys Elections - pretty much all the time today.  Tom Ferguson in his book 'Golden Rule:  The Investment Theory of Politics' says, "Elections are moments when groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state."

Special interest money - and especially corporate special interest money buys elections.  Historically, 9 out of 10 victors in elections have outspent their opponent, whatever their party.  Surprised?  No one should be.  Deep down, I think everyone probably kind of suspects that behind-the-scenes special interest money is funneled into election campaigns.   But, the trouble is, no one really understands how pervasive and serious this problem actually is.  No one seems to understand the danger this places us all in.  The danger to us collectively as a society that is.

Various campaign finance rule changes over the years resulted in a system which allows - even encourages - special interest money to influence and buy elections.  Massive amounts of money, millions and millions of dollars, from anonymous donors is utilized for ad campaigns favoring particular candidates or issues.  The main culprits are '527 groups' after the section of US law they are permitted by.  Much of their money - often called 'soft money' - doesn't even need to be reported to the Federal Election Committee until after the election is over - if then. 

In fact, the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC) decided in 2004 that 527's were not even to be regulated under campaign finance rules unless they 'directly advocate' the defeat of a candidate.

'Political Action Committees' (PACs) are more regulated, yet still able to spend vast sums lobbying and donating to other political campaigns.  Most federal level politicians now have their own PACs and use their discretion to dispense contributions as they see fit.  PACs are the so-called 'non-profit' 501(c) political organizations formed ostensibly to 'educate and inform'.

Those are the rules.  Those are the rules put in place by our legislators, elected by us, to serve 'we, the people', who instead are often persuaded to legislate in favor of some special interest or the other, which is often directly AGAINST the interests and welfare of the public.  A lot of money is at stake.  The people who do this - infuse the special interest money into the campaigns - claim it is their perfect right under the First Amendment - freedom of speech.  But, leaving aside the discussion as to whether or not a corporation, business group or PAC can be - as they are today - considered 'persons' (and very special 'persons' at that!) - the net effect drastically loosens the laws and allows massive amounts of cash to be unfairly inserted into campaigns in one form or the other.  Those with the gold, rule in other words.

An actual 'person' may not do this - unless it is to finance his or her own campaign.  Real people are limited in the amounts they are allowed to contribute - unless of course it is to a 527 group - and there they don't even need to be identified.  But any real person making a direct contribution over $100 to a political campaign must be identified by name, address and occupation/employer.

527 groups are allowed to spend unlimited amounts in favor of, or against any candidate or issue they so desire.  The only limitation to their spending when they qualify as a 'Trade Association' Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc., is that intervening in political campaigns is not  their 'primary activity'. 

How wrong is that?  And who decides whether or not political activity is their primary activity?  Surprise!  That is usually done by people appointed by politicians themselves.  On yes, something is definitely rotten in Denmark all right.

You and I as individuals may not contribute unlimited amounts for political advocacy (unless to a 527 group),  yet the 527 groups may do so, as much as they wish so long as they claim to be a trade association or like group.  How did it ever come to pass that these types of 'persons' have rights superior to actual people?  Beats me.  Oh yeah, wait a minute. . . . ,  I guess it's because politicians collectively decided it is advantageous to them personally, either in their own election campaigns, or in the massive amounts of money which will be funneled to them as advocacy for one issue or the other.  Public interests be damned.

Do we need election campaign finance reform?  You Bet! 

How can we do this without inhibiting rights to free speech?  There must be some mechanism which will permit real democracy to be maintained without endangering constitutional rights.  I believe there is.  In fact, it ought to be pretty darned simple if our political leaders actually believe in fairness and democracy.  In keeping with a 'one person, one vote' democracy, this is what is needed:

• Each person should be allowed to donate a limited amount to any candidate or issue he or she chooses.  No limits to the number of candidates or issues;
  

• No company, group, organization or entity other than actual persons should be considered as persons, or permitted to contribute to any candidate or issue whatever.

Simple, right?  Probably much too simple for the political leaders of today.

If you have the time, please view the excellent documentary on the new Golden Rule.

"The world is ruled only by the consideration of Advantages"
    ~ Friedrich von Schiller

The 'Soul' of the Republican Party

In other posts I have mentioned the seemingly inexorable trend towards the destruction of the Republican Party.  I have said it almost seems like some evil plot by enemies of the party.  Perhaps that is so,  but I can not find any real evidence of  that.

Instead, it seems more like some ugly political suicide at the behest of the neoconservative far-right wing of the party, holding a gun on everyone else in the party.  The neoconservatives' implacably insist on their own brands of perverted dogma, 'nothing else, and nothing less, so help us God'.   The result is a radical shift far right which other factions of the party seem powerless to resist.   Core values and principles are abandoned wholesale and left bleeding by the side of the road.  Whenever any group so abdicates its core principles and its abrogates values to the prejudices of lowest common denominators, how can you not expect damage or destruction of the party? 

Many neoconservatives believe and say the 'soul of the Republican Party' today is represented by, among others,   popular talk show personalities Sean Hannity,  Bill O'Reilly,  Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  These figures broadcast through either Fox News or Clear Channel Communications, and often both.  Three of them (Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck) are catholic, or ex-Catholic in the case of Beck who has now converted to Mormonism.   I mention this because it seems to a trait among Catholics towards strictness and obedience to 'doctrinal truths'.  Extreme examples are the infamous 'inquisitions' during Medieval times in the 13th centry and the Roman, Spanish and Portugeuse inquisitions supremacy during the 16th century.

Between the four of them, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly, only one finished college (O'Reilly) with the others having dropped out early in their 'educational careers'.  At least two are or have been confirmed drug addicts (Beck, Limbaugh).   Beck has been accused of rape.  O'Reilly has been sued for sexual harrasment with the suit being settled out of court, reportedly for millions of dollars.

These people freely and deliberately engage in outrageous claims and flaming rhetoric, the more outrageous and sensational the better.  This seems hugely attractive to the lower educated classes in the country, many of whom accept their claims as gospel while disregarding realities.  There are strong anti-elite, anti-intellectual and anti-progressive currents running through all their broadcasts.  Due to their popularity among the rank and file who call themselves conservatives, Beck and Limbaugh are now the most highly paid people in broadcast media today, with a following of millions of Americans.

Since the repeal of the FCC's 'Fairness Doctrine' by President Reagan, social and political issues have become polarized  into opposite partisan camps, as a result of the influence of broadcast media on those who follow them.  Before its repeal, the Fairness Doctrine compelled broadcast media to offer the opportunity to present contrasting or opposing viewpoints.  The Supreme Court upheld its legality. However, it was an FCC rule and not mandated by legislation although Congress. 

Unfortunately for the Republican Party,  their media wing now seems to captured by special interest groups and dominated by the Fox Broadcasting and Clear Channel Communications.  Each of these entities have their own agendas, neither of which is necessarily aligned with the interests of the American people, although they both stridently claim to do so.

Fox Broadcasting is owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.   Murdoch hired Roger Ailes to create the Fox News Channel which he now runs and which is now the preeminent cable news channel in the country. 

Ailes was the media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Rudy Guiliani.  His specialty is political sensationalization.  He is the author of the  'Orchestra Pit Theory", saying:  "If you have two guys on stage and one guys says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem', and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

Clear Channel Communications owns over 1200 radio broadcast stations throughout the US, and dominates in many regions being the only stations available.  Their board of directors is headed by wealthy far-right neoconservatives, largely from Texas or Oklahoma.  At least one director (John H. Williams) is a member of the infamous Bohemian Club of San Francisco.

Oh yes, it is clear some decidedly slanted 'reporting' is going on here.   Much of it is duplicitous, deceitful, and created opinion masquerading as truth and reality and has swayed elections.  It is neither reality nor truth.  Americans are being deceived and the credibility of Republicans is being destroyed. 

Will the so-called 'Soul of the Republican Party' ultimately destroy the party?

A 'Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy'?

The continuous naysaying of today's Republican Party is resulting in the diminished capability and credibility and the further disintegration of the Party.  There's no doubt about that. The damage to the party is almost enough to convince you it is the result of some 'vast left-wing conspiracy'. 

America's Right Wing has apparently been captured by fools, doctrinal idiots and people ignorant of history.  I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say it.  Mobilized and motivated by God Hollerers (evangelicals) and right wing media personalities, these people are now busily, implacably, inexplicably, driving the Republican party out of business.   The 'Party of No' now invariably and vehemently objects no matter how beneficial something may be, if can remotely be considered an 'Obama' success'.  For example, even though almost every politician of whatever party without exception, agrees there is a health care crisis in our country, the Republicans so far can muster only one single vote - Olympia Snowe of Maine - who will vote in favor of the only reform plan on the table. 

I am sad and concerned about this for a number of reasons.

First, I used to consider myself as moderately conservative - and usually voted Republican, though I now regret some of the votes I cast in the past.  But through no particular effort, or move of my own I find I am now defined as 'liberal'.   My past 'moderate conservative' identity has now been shoved emphatically to the left and redefined by the so-called conservatives of today.  All things moderate or progressive are now decried as 'left wing' or 'liberal' by the people who have appointed themselves as defenders of conservative values and who define themselves as conservative these days.  But sadly, what now masquerades as conservative is conservative in name only.  There is nothing conservative about it.  Radicalism by definition can never be considered conservative in any context. 

The conservatives of today are not even fiscally conservative anymore.  No where near so.  Just take an unbiased look at the legacy GW Bush left us all to see that.  Barrack Obama now shoulders the entire responsibility to correct things.   But, there is no shame among those who define themselves as conservative.  None whatever.   They pile on, denounce, block, obfuscate, deny and vociferously lay all the problems for the past decade at the poor man's feet.  They even denounce Obama for the Nobel prize which he did not ask for and which he himself says he does not deserve.  No matter - he's still the target of choice.  I am now convinced that even if full prosperity returned overnight, and the unemployment rate dropped to 2% they would still find things to complain about.  In fact, based on observations to date, I know they would.  The biggest lollipop in the world would not rate even a smile from conservatives of today.

In their eyes, George W. Bush could do no wrong, ever, no matter what, or how stupidly or badly he ended up trashing the country and so many of its institutions.  That may truly be their doctrinal blindness, but it is also incredibly obtuse denial.  Do those people really think no one pays attention?

Another reason is I believe we must always have a strong opposition party - at least one - to keep the party in power as honest as possible. There is an absolute truth that 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.  I don't care which faction is in power, no matter how good their original motives, left unrestrained the inevitable result is corruption.   But restraint should not mean absolute opposition to any act, good or bad, that the party in power tries.  There's a lot to the idea of the 'loyal opposition', but very little evidence of the fact today.

We have seen this before in both parties.  But today, under the control of today's 'conservatives' the Republican Party is marginalizing itself, more each day.  If the trend continues, the party may go out of business in the near future.  Historically, this has happened many times before with parties of the past when they made themselves irrelevant.  Incredibly, there have been over 95 political parties in the US which are now defunct.  Several of them elected candidates to the highest office in the land: 

• (Federalist)  John Adams;
• (Whig)  Wm. H. Harrison,  John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore;
• (Democratic-Republican)  Thomas jefferson, James Madison,  James Monroe, John Q. Adams 
• (Democratic National Union)  Andrew Johnson  
• (Republican National Union)  Abraham Lincoln

Will today's Republican Party be next?