Beginnings: The Platform of a Third Party

Let's suppose we've decided to start a third party with a legitimate chance of challenging the existing two-party system.  Where would we start?

First, we'd need a platform based on a few strong issues on which the two major parties have either taken the wrong stance, or a weak stance.   Ideally, they would be issues which neither would be likely to co-opt, since that's the usual mechanism by which third parties are destroyed - and the duopoly maintained.

Which is why the environment is a good place to start.  The Republican Party once had a wonderful record on protecting the environment, but Teddy Roosevelt left office over a century ago.  Today, the Tea Party types who drive the GOP agenda talk like they  actually relish environmental destruction - which is part and parcel of the adolescent narcissism at the heart of modern conservatism.

But on the environment, even the Democrats aren't really all that strong.  They talk a good game, but they invariably come up short.  A party wedded to organized labor must always put jobs - even short-term jobs - ahead of the health of the planet.  A party wedded to the poor cannot seriously take steps to raise energy prices - the only thing that will ever persuade Americans to embrace alternative energy.  And a party devoted to seniors will not be especially forward-looking.

Environmental issues - conservation and alternative energy, reducing consumerism and encouraging thrift, planning for a sustainable economy and limiting trade with nations which are big polluters - these should top the list of issues for a third party.

But our party can't be strictly "green".  Green parties never seem to garner much support in this country - probably because they tend to embrace the standard, big-government liberal agenda.  The Green Party, itself, is essentially the Democratic Party plus environmentalism.  

That being true, most of the people who would vote for a Green candidate end up voting Democratic in close elections.

At least, they do if they remember that unpleasant business with Ralph Nader and the 2000 Florida electoral vote.

If we're trying to start a third party with a forceful position on global warming, alternative energy, sustainable economics, and related issues, we'll need to combine this stand with other issues which differentiate our party from the Democrats.

Which brings us to electoral reform.  Most Americans are angered by the way corporate money dominates elections.  And they're horrified at some of the consequences - the ugly, negative spots which dominate electioneering; the way lobbyists, rather than citizens, shape our laws; and a tax system which assures that the very rich continue to get richer, while contributing too little to the common weal. 

A third party which advocated the abolition of campaign contributions from anyone other than individual  American citizens would win a lot of support.  It would also have the advantage of incorporating into its initial DNA an issue which both of the existing parties find absolutely toxic.  The duopoly survives because of corporate contributions, and neither party could easily never give them up.

Electoral reform also requires reforming the tough ballot-access laws which the major parties use to keep third party candidates off the ballot.  And, if we really mean to get serious, we should demand reforms which assure that state legislatures can no longer draw up their own districts - and Congressional districts - to protect incumbents and assure each party a large number of  "safe seats".

Beyond these two clusters of issues, our third party should find a way to challenge the existing, special-interest-oriented legislative agendas of the two major parties.

Perhaps a good beginning would be to enunciate a new approach to the whole question of what the Federal government does - one which embraces the idea that government can be a force for good, and the limitations of government power in a world of limited resources.

I've long thought that one part of such an approach might be to reconsider the meaning of Article I, section 8, paragraph 18 of the Constitution - the famous elastic clause.  Like most progressives, I accept a broad and evolving definition of what is "necessary and proper" for government to do, but I believe this definition can both stretch and contract.  Sometimes, an area which was once "necessary and proper" can cease to be so. 

Government should develop mechanisms for extricating itself from arenas in which it can no longer play a constructive role, or even, sometimes, where its efforts have simply become unnecessary.

In this connection, government should be particularly  vigilant about removing itself from the regulation of personal conduct.  Our third party should consider embracing some of the ideas usually labelled libertarian - particularly in cases where costly programs consume vital resources which could be better devoted to other purposes.

A third party which embraced personal choice in areas such as the private use of marijuana, or the use of lethal drugs as part of a well-designed "right to die", would appeal to millions of Americans both young and old.

Environmentalism; election  reform; a critical position regarding the scope of government; and greater personal freedom in areas not affecting the common weal - these are issues which might form the basis of a new party's platform.

The question is:  Do they represent a coherent philosophy of government?   Do they hold together?