Now that Trump has locked up the GOP nomination, and Hillary is the likely Democrat nominee, sane people everywhere are turning their thoughts to third party alternatives. Unfortunately, the pickings are slim. You have the Libertarian Party (whose front-runner isn’t really libertarian), the Green Party (“Don’t think the two main parties are statist enough? Pick us!”), and the Constitution Party (promising, but I feel like they consist mostly of Revolutionary War re-enactors), each of which has significant flaws. Now is a great time for a new third party to be formed.
Any political party, of course, is unable to completely represent everyone’s views, including my own. But, in an ideal world, what would I look for in a third party? I’m glad you asked!
I am convinced that the #1 issue facing the country today is the size and scope of government. The underlying presupposition of too many Americans is that the government can and should be involved in almost every aspect of our lives. This is true of both liberals and conservatives. However, government should be like a good umpire in baseball: he isn’t really part of the game, and when he is going a good job, he is barely noticeable in the background. So any third party must recognize that government is a necessary evil, not a savior.
Now let’s look at some specific issues.
Might as well start with probably the most divisive issue of them all. Simply put, abortion is the murder of a human being, and murder in any form should be illegal. There is no debate scientifically that the unborn child is human, and thus that child is deserving of the same protections as anyone outside the womb. Note that this is not a religious issue; an appeal to the non-aggression principle – that one cannot initiate physical force against another – clearly demonstrates that if an unborn child is a human person, then abortion is immoral. The question still remains: how should the federal government handle abortion? I think a great first step would to be return it to the states. Overturn the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade and let individual states decide their abortion laws. Long term, I would advocate for a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal.
I believe in the free market – and I really mean it. Not the pseudo-free market the United States has had for the past 80+ years, but instead a true free market with no government assistance to any industry, whether it is on Main Street or Wall Street. No business is “too big to fail” and no industry is so vital it should be propped up by Washington (if it were truly vital it wouldn’t need to be propped up). Further, we should free the monetary system by shutting down the Federal Reserve. Such an act will stop the endless artificial boom-and-bust cycle we currently endure. The main role of government in the economy should be to ensure that contracts are enforced and that fraud is not allowed, not to decide “winners” and “losers.”
One thing is clear about the movement to combat climate change/global warming/global cooling or whatever it’s called this week: it’s an engine for elites to take more control of our lives. Whether one is skeptical or not of the reality of climate change, everyone should be skeptical of the motives of those pushing the climate change agenda. Let entrepreneurs and private organizations find ways to help the planet if that is needed; in fact, they would do it far better than government bureaucrats. Do we really think the people who run the local DMV will be able to help anyway?
Put simply, the United States should stay out of the business of other countries. Only if the actions of another country directly impact our national interests should intervention even be considered. Of course, in recent decades, if a foreign leader sneezes in the direction of the U.S., it becomes a grounds for intervention. The U.S. policy in the Middle East is a prime example of disastrous U.S. foreign policy; for decades we have tried to shape the direction of that region of the world, and what is the result? Multiple wars and no improvement. The primary purpose of the U.S. military should be the protection of this country, not forcibly exporting our “values” overseas.
I’m not a big gun nut. I didn’t even fire a gun until later in life, and I couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn if I tried to shoot one now. However, every individual has the right to own whatever guns they want. The first step of a totalitarian government is to disarm its people. Frankly, governments should have a healthy fear of their populace.
Abolish Obamacare. But that is only the beginning – health care was broken before Obamacare. What needs to happen is for the government to get completely out of the health care system. Let the free market determine prices and services. Like every other industry that is open, the market will make health care more affordable and better able to respond to the needs of its clients.
I’ll be honest: immigration isn’t a big issue for me. I know it gets a lot of people up in arms, but I don’t see it as the end-of-the-world issue some do. In general, I’m for open but secure borders. Although it sounds paradoxical, it really is common sense: open the door for good-intentioned immigrants, but close it shut for those who wish to do the country harm. I don’t have a problem with a lot more immigrants coming into this country (nor do I really mind if those already here illegally were eventually made citizens through some careful process). But I also think we need to strictly enforce that anyone with a criminal past, or potential terrorist connections, is not welcome. And yes, that probably means you, young Middle Eastern man.
I believe in freedom. Period. A Jewish baker shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for neo-Nazis, and a Christian baker shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Further, the government should not be spying on its law-abiding citizens. People have a basic right to privacy and freedom of action; the bar should be set very high before law enforcement should be allowed to monitor someone. In other words, shut down the Peeping Toms at the NSA.
Marriage is the lifelong, exclusive union of a man and a woman. This statement has been non-controversial throughout the ages, but of course it has recently become a subversive belief.
But what is the government’s role in supporting or defending marriage? Strong marriages are the foundation of strong families, and strong families are the foundation of strong societies, so governments have an interest in supporting strong marriages. No government can force “strong marriages,” however. I think in general no laws should exist which penalize “traditional” (i.e., man/woman) marriages, and no laws should exist which make other unions on the same legal level as true marriages. I don’t think it should be illegal for two men or two women to have an intimate relationship or to have a religious organization recognize their union, while at the same time, no religious organization should be forced to recognize as marriages unions they do not believe are marriages.
Abolish the income tax. Eliminate the death tax. Get rid of the capital gains tax. See a pattern? At this point, we need to starve the beast. If that means thousands of government workers lose their jobs, it’s a win-win.
Practically, I understand the need for small amount of taxation; for example, a small sales tax. But if anyone is paying more than a few percent of his income in taxes, it’s too much.
My conclusion? The two major parties have failed our country miserably, so we might as well look to a third party. Remember, the original two major parties of this country weren’t the Democrats and the Republicans, so there is precedent for parties failing and new ones rising (is anyone a Whig anymore?). Of course, I’m not going to hold my breath that such a party as I describe will materialize anytime soon. A country that nominates Trump and Hillary as the two major party nominees is a long way from rationality.