Month: November 2020

In this chapter, Zinn essentially summarizes his purpose behind writing this book. He asserts that history has been told from a very one sided view point, and that this book’s mission is to tell the other side of American History, which gets nowhere near the same amount of intention as the predominant viewpoint. He argues that United States culture idolizes the presence of a savior. Zinn writes ” histories of this country suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us” (p. 631). He then offers examples such as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Carter. Next, Zinn wants to highlight the fact that the 1% of wealthy, land owning elites, throughout American history have attempted to make the other 99% feel so divided that they are able to keep their money, power, and rule by keeping the majority of conflict within the 99% group as opposed to at the 1% group. Zinn argues that their prime method of accomplishing this is to use the middle class as a barrier. He believes that in a capitalist society, the poor will always struggle. However, the middle class is essentially baited with the promise of equality and hope, causing them to submit to and obey the wealthy elite. This, in turn, allows the wealthy elite to maneuver the middle class to oppress the lower class, as the wealthy remain in power. Zinn describes this middle class as “guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes” (p. 635). On this same page, he brings up a very important point: “If they stop obeying, the system fails”. Zinn later writes that if this revolution would occur, “society’s levels of power would have to be taken away from… the giant corporations, the military, and their politician collaborators” (p. 639).

Throughout this book, Zinn has shown us how the upper classes have quieted revolutions and made small agreements to pacify the needs and wants of the lower and middle class in order to maintain their rule. I find it interesting that Zinn pushes so hard for the middle class to become aware of the system. I do believe that a system like this can lead the middle class to be unconscious of their role. They see the lower class struggle and believe that they are better off because of their hard work and opportunities given to them from the upper class. However, if they were able to become more aware of the system in place, I do believe that they would push against the upper class, and fight for not only their equal treatment, but also that of the lower class. As I have learned in this class, and my sociology class this semester, some level of discontent is healthy. It leads to improvement of a society, and a better life for those who realize the need for change. As Zinn consistently refers back to, it is the middle class that has the power to make this change.

So much of today’s chapter is relatable to our current climate today. As I read about how protests of the 80s were often unreported, it just made me draw similarities to today. It was interesting because over the summer there were so many peaceful protests all across the United States, but the press didn’t seem to care. The cameras would only be at the violent protests, or riots. So much of what actually happened over the summer got painted in a bad light, and it made people who weren’t out in the streets view the movement as violent and chaotic, when it wasn’t. The media is incredibly responsible for most people’s opinions, and in recent years it has become a corrupted system.

The elections of Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush being declared as landslides also is something that can be connected to today. With our most recent election, the media played a significant role in influencing people. From both sides, they played dirty and reported on the candidates based on their bias. We see that the right-wing media has nothing bad to say about Trump’s lack of taxes, but constantly bash on Biden for every little thing. It really just goes to show how corrupted the media has become. It is insane to think that there was a time when television and news weren’t biased, and it wasn’t about entertainment. I wonder if there is a coming back from this.

While I was reading Zinn’s “The Unreported Resistance,” I learned quite a bit about the late twentieth century and saw many connections between government issues and activism back then as well as in present-day America. One of the main points that stuck out to me while I was reading was the idea that many of the injustices that the public protested so passionately against during the sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties are injustices that are still seen and fought against today. It made sad and a bit discouraged to see how, despite advances in certain areas, we are still faced with the same inequalities and still fighting the same battles that we were half a century ago. Some examples of these commonalities include the mass incarceration rate of poor people, specifically poor Black people, in response to widespread poverty. Both then and now, welfare was seen as a dirty word that people and politicians wanted to avoid. However, as pointed out by Zinn, people in general wanted to help and give more resources to the poor, with one poll showing 64% of people saying they supported guaranteeing food and shelter for needy people (612). The rights of the poor and oppressed have been overlooked since the foundation of this country, rather favoring policies that help the rich stay rich at the expense of the poor, and protect wealthy corporations that exploit the poor in the name of capitalism. Another example of common issues seen both today and throughout the period Zinn discusses is the fight for equal protection and reparations for Native Americans. Widespread opposition to the celebration of Columbus Day was first seen in 1992, a movement that is still continuing, with some but not widespread success. The wealthy, corporation-focused capatalist government of America was too concerned with the economic successes of the rich and the illusion of the “American Dream” to recognize and attempt to ammend the pain, suffering, and death they caused to get there, and it appears that this is still a fight that must be taken on by the people today.

Another part of Zinn’s chapter that specifically stood out to me were the quotes about the imperalism and international interference of America and our troops, despite the fact that our government is unable to solve the problems domestically it claims to solve, and ultimately creates, in other countries abroad. The quote on page 625 by historian Marilyn Young demonstrates the superiority complex of the United States in thinking that we have the authority to invade whoever we want and take whatever resources we want, while not even having the power to solve our own domestic issues of poverty, race relations, health care, infrastructure, drug addiction, mass incarceration, and more. As usual, Zinn’s chapter helped shed light on an issue I was already relatively aware of. His chapter provided me with information to drive home the point that America was not made and is not meant for all types of people, and that we will continue to see these same issues for decades and centuries to come if we do not shift the priorities of the government from the top ten percent to the general public it is actually meant to serve.

In Chapter 22 of PHUS, “The Unreported Resistance,” Zinn broadens the scope and significance of protest and social justice movements to the history and upbringing of the United States. Zinn references a “permanent adversarial culture” that arose in response to the Vietnam War and endured through the presidencies of Carter, Reagan, and Bush. This culture of resistance that acted as an unrecognized movement shed light on unprioritized movements like the AIDS crisis along with deteriorating social services.

The two social movements previously mentioned, along with many others, shed light on the abandonment of domestic problems that the United States government exhibited while acting in favor of militaristic priorities and focus. I found it shocking that many of the military actions that occurred throughout the time were taken without public knowledge or support. Bush’s involvement in the Gulf War along with Reagan’s increasing military spending are two actions that were undertaken by the government, yet not supported by the public. Going against the public will spark a principle of government questioning that became extremely prominent in the late 20th century, and the countless years of honoring the military prior to this movement were thrown out the window as the culture in the United States changed.

Overall, this chapter did a proficient job introducing the culture of social reform and providing examples of un-popular movements that hold a significant piece of importance in American history. To draw on our world today, Chapter 22 reflects many ideals of our current times, specifically as they relate to Police reform in the United States. Twentieth-century activists called for defunding of the military, and that same thing is happening in the 21st century as current political activists want reform in response to the killings of countless, Black Americans. It is important to take the lessons of reform from Zinn’s chapter and incorporate those into our lives to make active, and effective political and social reform.

     The chapter “The Unreported Resistance” within Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States detailed the numerous rebellions of the American people against our government throughout the late 1900s. I was surprised to learn about this “permanent adversarial culture” (601) that began in the United States in the late 1900s due to our government’s actions. For example, I was previously unaware of the “national movement against nuclear weapons,” (603) which was catalyzed by President Reagan’s huge military budget. Despite the largest political protest in the history of the United States that occurred in Central Park, NYC (among other protests) to halt the testing, production and development of nuclear weapons, the federal government still later got involved in the Gulf War during the George H. W. Bush presidency.

      The unrest among the people of the United States in the late 1900s that Zinn described in this chapter reminded me of the current protests that are currently taking place. Over the past few months, massive BLM and other protests have occurred. It is unfortunate people within the United States are still unhappy with our government, however I am hoping that these current  protests serve as a positive agent for changes within our government in the future.

I found chapter 22 of People’s History of the United States, to be very interesting. Zinn discusses how in some presidential elections, especially Reagan’s and Bush’s, the media put on a different view of the election than what it actually was. I feel that some people have a similar view of this year’s election. Some people did not love either of the candidates. It was surprising to see if the Bush and Reagan elections that not a lot of people voted. Both the presidents were viewed as if they won by a lot and they have a lot of support but in reality, they actually faced some resistance. Zinn talks about how American’s protested against Raegan’s production of nuclear weapons. Throughout the chapter, Zinn focuses on different times American’s protested. He talks about the Chicano movement which was a movement in the 1980s that focused on Mexican descendants who lived in California and the Southwest that were unhappy with the foreign policy. Zinn discusses the times in America when Americans were in opposition towards systems that the government had set up and the different perspectives from the media and reality. 

I found chapter 22 of People’s History of the United States to be very interesting. Zinn discusses how in some presidential elections, especially Reagan’s and Bush’s, the media put on a different view of the election than what it actually was. I feel that some people have a similar view of this year’s election. Some people did not love either of the candidates. It was surprising to see if the Bush and Reagan elections that not a lot of people voted. Both the presidents were viewed as if they won by a lot, and they have a lot of support, but in reality, they actually faced some resistance. Zinn talks about how American’s protested against Raegan’s production of nuclear weapons. Throughout the chapter, Zinn focuses on different times American’s protested. He talks about the Chicano movement, which was a movement in the 1980s that focused on Mexican descendants who lived in California and the Southwest that were unhappy with the foreign policy. Zinn discusses the times in America when Americans were in opposition towards systems that the government had set up and the different perspectives from the media and reality. 

In Chapter 22 of PHUS, “The Unreported Resistance,” Zinn expands on the continuous theme of a United States history driven by collective social action rather than simply by governmental, political, and military action. Specifically, this chapter details the “permanent adversarial culture” that arose in the decades following the Vietnam War. Throughout the presidencies of Carter, Reagan, and Bush, a largely unrecognized movement of resistance spurred the nation into social action bringing awareness to abandoned issues such as deteriorating social services, the AIDS crisis, racial injustice, and the plights of Indigenous communities native to North America.

Each of these social movements, largely intertwined with the latter portion of the Cold War and the duration of the Gulf War, brought attention to the government’s abandonment of domestic issues in favor of a focus on militarism. I found it very jarring that much military action throughout this time was initiated without proper public support; Reagan increased military spending at the expense of the domestic budget despite public cries for a Nuclear Freeze, and the federal government later took action in the Gulf War without overwhelming public approval. Despite the United States’ long history of honoring the military, the late 20th century was characterized by public questioning of the government’s prioritization of national defense. Military opposition from social justice advocates, such as Chicano communities denouncing the imperialism of American militarism, began to reveal the sociopolitical divide that had emerged in many US military conflicts, prioritizing the political and economic interests of the government and the elite class over the needs of disadvantaged communities within US borders.

In light of Zinn’s criticism of the government for evading its domestic responsibilities through military conflict, I’d like to draw a parallel to social justice activists’ ongoing calls for police reform/abolition. As activists of the late twentieth century called for defunding of the military in favor of social services, the activists of today are calling for a movement to defund the police to reallocate funds to ensure proper education and health services that would play a more proactive role in reducing crime. Much like the federal government has drawn its focus to foreign conflicts in abandonment of domestic social concerns, it’s also had a recent history of maintaining the norm of strict (and often violent) reactionary responses to crime at the expense of assisting communities in reform to ensure maintainable civil peace. As we reflect on the governments’ past prioritization failures, we need to remain critical of its current priorities in order to pursue meaningful social reform.

Zinn’s chapter on “The Unreported Resistance” presents an American societal conflict that is uniquely dire in a time of heightened risk of violent division. Post-Cold War foreign policy is held by the grips of capitalism and nuclear armament, and while public support for increased military spending may have been present, it was contested in disproportionately large amounts. Student and university movements were large and widespread against budget allocations towards nuclear armament and corporate defense spending, especially when multiple presidential administrations moved to cut spending on social welfare programs at the same time. Foreign policy decisions, specifically those made in the Global South, were fought against for their destructive and hypocritical policies. From South Africa to El Salvador, the support given by the United States did anything but protect democracy. Even though Post-Cold War American protest movements are relatively overlooked compared to those of the 60s and 70s, they were forcible and often created real change from the grassroots upwards: consider the congressional popularity overthrowing Reagan’s veto of South African economic sanctions.

This is what I believe to be the essence of Zinn’s work: to tell a history of resistance that subverts the popular narrative, opening a conversation on the underlying problems that impede American progress. The issue of true societal popularity is worth noting here. Zinn uses some pretty shocking statistics when describing the amount of discontent versus non involvement with the American people. One could argue that while only 29% of eligible adults voted for Reagan’s re-election, thousands of protest movements reminiscent of the counterculture marked an era of constant dissent from a nation gripped by the momentum of late-stage capitalism. Public opinion surveys regularly found that the majority of Americans did not look favorably upon the current paradigm of military spending (Zinn 611,612). When he explains the “permanent adversarial culture”, he points to a potential crack in the present system, one that will require hefty reform to overcome if any progress forwards is to be made. 

I found Howard Zinn’s chapter The Unreported Resistance and his analyses on the protests throughout American history to be very compelling and informative. Every movement or political agenda always has two sides to it. As we have discussed, history is written by the victors so the opposing side is often undervalued and unreported. Zinn focuses on the resistance during the 1980s towards the end of the Cold War. At this time, it was clear there would not be a nuclear war like many thought in the 1960s. However, the United States showed no signs in slowing its production of nuclear weapons or decreasing its military budget. Citizens began to catch on to the Government’s unjust spending actions and movements started in the grassroots in churches, meeting halls, and homes. These small movements were all fighting a similar cause and once they realized they were not alone in their cause, action could be taken and they could make a difference. The Nuclear Freeze began to sweep across the nation and gain support by Americans of all classes and political views.

It is important to look at what else is going on in History at the times of these progressive movements. America often moves in cycles, whether that is the boom-bust cycle of the economy or the progressive/conservative cycle of public opinion. When the United States is not in conflict and the people are not as worried about external threats, they are more progressive on domestic issues because they have the time to worry about them. Following the Iranian Hostage Crisis, only twelve percent of Americans believed we were spending too much on the military. However, in 1983, when the possibility of an attack or war became less likely, forty-eight percent said that too much was being spent on arms. I also thought Zinns comparison of the 1980s to the 1960s to be very intriguing. The same people who were protesting for civil rights and dodging the draft in the 1960s were now teachers and sometimes parents to the children of the 1980s who were dodging the new draft and had a newfound sense of political consciousness. It is crazy to see college kids have an impact on history and see that their voice matters because we are all now part of that same demographic and we can impact history for the better.

Zinn’s chapter, “Unreported Resistance” along with the Ezra Klein show podcast really made me interested in the divide we have in this country. Such a large group of Americans are let down by our country’s government over the years, this has been happening all throughout history. The leaders of our country, like Bush and Reagan, keep going against the majority opinion of Americans. Making decisions that only benefit a certain group of Americans, usually the rich white Americans. But during the time these two presidents were in office there seemed to be a lot of resistance from Americans. The people were sticking up for themselves and fighting to get what they deserve.

Zinn, as he usually does, talked about different civil disobedience acts that I never learned about in any of my history classes in school. Americans protested for numerous reasons, like in the 1980s they went against Reagan since he was focused on producing nuclear weapons. And no American wanted to be apart of a nuclear war, just because Reagan wanted to assert his dominance during the Cold War. Reagan also adopted an economy position that resulted in the reduction and elimination of social services. The cuts in social services had a lot of Americans angry, because it left many Americans unable to take care of their needs which was vital. The last thing Zinn talks about his how democrats and republicans are not that different and the real divide comes from class differences.

Something from Zinn’s chapter, “Unreported Resistance”, that caught my attention was the ideas of the presidential election. Zinn talks a lot about Bush and Reagan and their election and presidencies. It was (and maybe still is) believed that they won with landslide victory. In both of these elections it has been known that many people didn’t vote. It is also apparent that the popular vote was much more popular than thought– because of the way the electoral map showed a clear victory it can confuse people. These two Presidents did not go into office unresisted. Many Americans expressed their clear opinions and dislike towards them so that it was known that just because they won, doesn’t mean the whole country loves them. This reminds me a lot of the past 2 elections. The candidates, Trump and Clinton, then Trump and Biden, have been so polar opposite that it has completely split the country. In the 2016 election Trump won the election but didn’t win the popular vote– a very uncommon thing. This is something that didn’t sit well with many Americans and he faced tons of resistance. Again in this most recent 2020 election, Biden defeated Trump but it was very close. This obviously made Biden supporters/Trump haters happy, but there are a ton of Trump supporters (almost half the country) left unhappy. I just find it to be almost sad how recently when the candidate wins people don’t really just accept it and move on. I talked to my parents about this and they said they find it so crazy that the country is like this right now. They said plenty of times the president they voted for didn’t win and it wasn’t that big of a deal. I don’t know how but in my opinion America needs to find candidates that are less on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum. 

Building on the idea of citizens being split due to elections, I also find it sad how split the nation is based on political parties. Zinn explains how Democratic and Republican ideas at the core are really not all that different as we make them out to be, but it is the people that really drive a wedge between each other because it becomes more of a class divide. I would like to see a country that is more united in the future, rather than where we are now.

I really thought that this chapter had a lot of pertinence into the current day, as it discussed protests and elections as well. Zinn claims that the American people had an adversarial culture, something that I think can be a really good thing. Today we are having protests for BLM, something so important, that is going to require the country to change. I think our ability to protest and fight for our rights is something that needs to protected because it is what has led to significant social change in the past. This can be seen in Civil rights, feminist movements, and more.

I thought a really interesting part of Zinn’s chapter was about the election, and how the media said that Bush and Reagan’s elections were landslides when in reality, they did not have overwhelming support. A lot of the country did not vote or had to choose between two people that they did not necessarily love. I feel like this has become a recent trend in politics, that people have felt like they had to vote, but had to choose between two candidates that were not very good. Similar to then, I think people either vote based on policies, or because they really don’t like the other candidate. Why has this become a thing? Why are we not fighting for better candidates?

The last thing Zinn argues is about how when you get down to issues, Democrats and Republicans really are not that different and that the divides and differences in this country come from the class divides in the country as the wealthy and the middle class and the poor all have different priorities that are reflected in their political preferences.

After reading Zinn’s chapter, “Unreported Resistance” and listening to the Ezra Klein Show Podcast, I am increasingly interested in the clear divide of our country. I learned a lot of new information, specifically about just how often a large number of citizens and groups have been unhappy with our government over the years. History really does seem to repeat itself. The repetition of leaders of our country going against the majority opinion and taking drastic measures in situations has become increasingly concerning. For example, the national movement against nuclear weapons development was a time when people were very obviously against the cold war and production and development of nuclear weapons and the government really didn’t listen or respond to the protests and demonstrations.

The chapter also extensively talks about the Bush and Reagan presidencies. It is believed that both candidates won their respected elections with flying colors, however this is not the case. In both of these elections, many people didn’t even bother to vote as well as the popular vote was much closer than what was broadcasted on the electoral map. Nonetheless, both of these men were elected and served as presidents and faced a lot of resistance from the people of America. The resistance surprised me, but also made me happy that people at this time were sticking up for themselves and what they believe in. I hope today we can learn from our countries previous mistakes and become more of a democracy. America needs to learn how to make decisions that will truly benefit the people. 

The Ezra Klein podcast on America’s political polarization gave me more insight into politics, especially after the recent presidential election. Specifically, I was enlightened by Klein’s claim that as people become more politically engaged, they vote less on self-interest and more on identity expression. In other words, as more people become informed voters, they cast votes for candidates whose campaign deliverables resonate with their- the voter- identity and values rather than their selfish interests. In applying this knowledge to the 2020 Electoral College map, I am highly disturbed at the scale of voters who identified with the Trump administration’s policies and core values. While I respect their beliefs, I wonder if Klein’s speculation- that for a just democracy to rule, older white men in positions of power and authority will need to be replaced with political leaders of color- will ever happen. What cost will those of us who are not white and privileged pay if it does happen?

On another note, Zinn’s chapter on “The Unreported Resistance” captured various civil disobedience acts that are not covered in most K-12 educational institutions, especially if those institutions are public with the state dictating what the curriculum should be. For instance, throughout the 1980s, Americans aggressively protested the Reagan administration’s focus on producing nuclear weapons. Americans did not want a nuclear war to be the penultimate product of the Cold War. Even though I found these acts of resistance inspiring, I am still curious about how corrupt institutions, such as the federal government, were not overthrown by the public majority. I recall at the beginning of our course, Dr. Bezio mentioned that it only takes 12% of a population to overthrow a system. Hence, I wonder if the number of people involved in these resistance acts was not large enough to execute change on a macro-level. Perhaps, this is when the role of media, and now, social media, plays an integral role in either motivating or discouraging people from acting against an institution or institutions.

Since World War II, American leaders have been obsessed with asserting their dominance over the rest of the world. Busy with their self-proclaimed title of the “world police,” these politicians have neglected domestic issues such as poverty and discrimination in favor of unnecessary and unsuccessful foreign interventionism. In his textbook chapter, “The Unreported Resistance,” historian Howard Zinn discusses the growing opposition to these misguided policy priorities, and the adverse effects of domestic neglect. Prompted by a global shift towards neoliberalism, President Reagan adopted a trickle-down economy position resulting in the reduction and elimination of social services. This ideology frustrated many Americans, and “Reagan’s cuts in social services were felt on the local side as vital needs could not be taken care of” (Zinn 12369). He justified this decision by arguing that the people did not want higher taxes, which was “certainly true as a general proposition… but when they were asked if they would be willing to pay higher taxes for specific purposes like health and education, they said yes” (Zinn 12438). Reagan’s indifference towards the will of the American people frustrated many Americans, especially when paired with his international policy decisions.

The American people were still recovering from the highly problematic and avoidable Vietnam War when President Reagan considered a Nicaraguan invasion in the early 1980s. Fearful that politicians were repeating the same mistakes from two decades earlier, “over 60,000 Americans signed pledges to take action of some sort, including civil disobedience, if Reagan moved to invade Nicaragua” (Zinn 12369). American politicians did not learn their lesson, though. A few years later, the Bush administration was considering a war against Iraq. When this news reached the American people, “thousands of people in Los Angeles marched along the same route they had taken twenty years before, when they were protesting the Vietnam War” (Zinn 12522). Despite these protests, the Bush administration carried on with the Gulf War. The next decade, Bush’s son instigated the Second Gulf War. It is clear that, as of now, the United States government does not plan on breaking their pattern of foreign interventionism, even if it is against the will of the American people. This fixation with foreign invasions contributes to the ongoing wealth disparities that persist in the United States.

In Zinn’s latest chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Zinn tells the story of the anti-nuclear movement that began in response to the arms race between the United States and the USSR. In this chapter Zinn once again displays how despite our country being supposedly for the people, our leaders often push the populations’ opinion to the wayside. In this case, a vast majority of the US wanted nothing to do with the Cold War and the possibility of nuclear warfare. In fact, hundreds of colleges had meetings discussing this issue along with the largest protest in the history of our country. Despite all of this, President Reagen still went against their best wishes.

Much of the information I read throughout this chapter was new to me. Of course, I had learned about the Cold War and the threat of a possible nuclear fallout, but never anything about the mass disapproval Reagen and presidents before him received for promoting it. It seems that this pattern of the population’s opinion is taken as a grain of salt by its leaders is a common theme throughout our nation’s history and even today. I can’t help but wonder why we are not taught about these moments in greater detail in hopes to regain a sense of unity between the people and their government.

In this week’s reading of PHUS, Zinn outlines the history of opposition movements in the United States. Americans from a variety of backgrounds became involved in movements (such as the national movement against nuclear weapons) in hopes to create a change in something that they believed in. As a result of these movements, the Reagan administration acted poorly. His administration ignored the public opinion and acted against their wishes. Again and again in history we see our presidents ignore the opinion of  the people. This creates a disconnection between the government and the United States people. 

When Bush was president, he attempted to create a loophole in avoiding a national antiwar movement. In 1991, The United States bombed Iraq with overwhelming force so that the war would be over quickly. Unlike the Vietnam War, the movement against the Gulf War expanded with extraordinary speed and vigor. Unions, who once supported the Vietnam War, spoke against the Gulf War. Information networks sprang up during the Gulf War to tell what was not being told in the major media. Other sources of media developed as well such as alternative newspapers and radio stations. Despite the fact that the government attempted to withhold information from the American people, movements still occurred. Throughout history, we continuously see movements from people in hopes to see positive change.

After listening to the podcast and reading the latest chapter of A Peoples History of the United States, I am reminded how much history continues to repeat itself. People think much of what’s happening has never happened before and that our country has never faced problems like today, but we have. The narrative of the history is simply changed to be an easier tale to tell. I especially noticed this when Zinn was talking about the Reagan and Bush elections and how they were both “overwhelming victory.” This was not actually the case and in fact if people looked closer at the actual voting numbers it was not too far off, this is much different than what the electoral map showed obviously. Additionally, there were a large portion of Americans who just simply didn’t vote because they wanted neither candidate.

Ezra Klein also talked about how things are not portrayed how they actually are when discussing how voters think things are majorly polarized and that there are some huge differences between the parties when actually its not that huge. Zinn seemed to agree with this assessment saying that the parties are not too different, they both mainly work for the rich.