The Ideal Hypothetical Third Party Candidate

One of the major takeaways from the last election - when 14 million fewer people voted than in 2008 - is that many American people are seemingly disenfranchised with the way both parties are being run. As voters, we receive one chance every four years to express our voice, and when 14 million people who expressed that voice four years ago choose to waive their option to vote, it speaks volumes.

This led me to start thinking of what an ideal third party should look like, one that would engage the moderate members of both parties as well as speak to independent voters. It's clear that in many cases it's the far left and right wings of the Democratic and Republican parties that have co-opted the message of the center and are skewing the message that the people want to hear. Thus, an ideal hypothetical third party candidate (IHTPC) would be centrist and should contain the following ideals:

1) Gay Marriage/ Marijuana:
Like it or not, these issues are ones that are not going away in national politics any time soon and if anything, they will just get larger. I combine them here because they are similar in that the national opinion on them is shifting from the right to the left and because both involve state's rights issues that are consistently put on local ballots throughout the country.

I think that an IHTPC should take a position of neutrality and let voters in individual states decide the law (or for the issue of gay marriage, take the Ron Paul stance and get government out of marriage entirely by simply changing the word that the government use to 'civil union' and allowing churches to use 'marriage'. It's a somewhat radical view but one that is at least logical). Most voters, except for those passionately for or against gay marriage or marijuana, can at least appreciate when someone puts the issue in the hands of the voters and stands by whatever the people decide, regardless of their own beliefs. In fact, this is a strategy used by one of most successful young politicians in the country, Gavin Newsom, current Lieutenant Governor of California. During his time as mayor of San Francisco, Newsom - a staunch Roman Catholic - simply set aside his personal beliefs and did what he thought was appropriate for those who voted him into office.

The same can be said about the legalization of marijuana (not counting medical marijuana, which is a much less controversial issue). I even think that for some, the only thing more disturbing about the passing of the legalization of marijuana laws in various states is the idea that the federal government and the DEA can (and, no doubt, will) immediately shut down any places within the states selling marijuana and arresting the owners as violators of Federal law. The smartest stance that an IHTPC can take is to get the Federal government out of the marijuana issue and let individual states decide.

2) Taxes/Spending:
Much like the first item on the list, these two issues are so intertwined that they are easily lumped together.

The current talk dominating the news involves the 'Fiscal Cliff'' that the nation is rapidly approaching, which is odd because anyone who takes a serious look at the numbers knows that the 'Fiscal Cliff'' has been around for a long time and it's only entering national discourse now. The solution proposed by the White House and the Democrats in Congress is to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 per year while the Republican plan is to keep taxes the way they are and cut spending - without naming which cuts they would make - and closing loopholes.

Our ideal candidate should actually borrow much of their stances on these issues from The Tea Party. While some view the Tea Party as radical or right-wing, what they propose is lowering taxes across the board while cutting government spending at the same rate, if not higher. Anyone who honestly looks at the size and scale of the Federal government will instantly tell you that it's in drastic need of cutting.

A great place to start the cutting is the defense budget (most think of entitlement programs as the ones in need of cutting first, and while that's true, the amount spent on entitlement programs is tiny compared to the defense budget). Logically, one would think that this would be done automatically, that defense cuts would go hand-in-hand with a reduction in US troops abroad. Logic is something that Washington does poorly, however, demonstrated by the fact that many are calling for an increase in defense spending that this time (of course, should a terrorist attack against the US happen again, any politician who advocated trimming the defense budget would be an instant pariah).

And as to the issue of taxes, something often forgotten is that in many cases, lower taxes lead to an increase in tax revenue. This is due to something called the Laffer Curve, and it's been proven time and time again, nationally in the 1920s and 1960s and most recently in states like Wisconsin and New Jersey, where governors, wanting to add money to their state's coffers, decreased taxes. It's a concept that is contradictory to our instincts and that might be hard to explain to some, and the IHTPC should be able to articulate the need to hold tax rates steady - if not lower them  - in order for the government to receive more money. Also, the IHTPC should advocate that tax loopholes be closed immediately. The existence of loopholes not only create a strong unbalance in the free market, they also make the average American highly resentful of the companies for using them and of the government for allowing them.

3) Foreign Policy:
I think that a lot of level-headed people look at the President's foreign policy and agree with much of what he's done, and an IHTPC looking to carry a national election would do much of the same. There have been significant troop drawbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden is dead, and the US has recently reasserted Israel's right to defend itself in the light of recent attacks in Gaza. The president could be ripe for criticism for his decision to keep Guantanamo Bay open after promising to close it during his campaign in 2008, but it's likely a decision that has kept the American people more safe. The IHTPC should do the same.

The only major difference between what President Obama has done and what the IHTPC could do is to reduce the amount of foreign aid across the board. While most recognize the necessary of this aid, there's a growing national consciousness of the amount of money spent on other countries while there are so many pressing financial issues domestically.

5) Immigration
The final issue that was key in deciding the last election and it's an issue that is growing with every election cycle.

Much like the above issue of Foreign Policy, I think the IHTPC should follow much - but certainly not all - of the President's policies. While most on the right look at the President's immigration policy (and specifically the DREAM Act) with disdain, what they probably don't realize is that the current administration is cracking down on illegal immigration at record rates thanks to the Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Secure Communities Program, created in 2008, which calls for police to submit suspects' fingerprints to the DHS so they can be cross-checked with federal deportation orders. This has led to the deportation of up to 10,000 people to day. As for the DREAM Act, while not perfect I think most look at as a reasonable piece of legislation that attempts to address the question of what to do with the children of illegal immigrants.

However, there are two areas in which the IHTPC should differentiate from the current administration. The first would be to support legislation similar to Arizona SB 1070, the controversial law that was signed into law in 2010 and that had elements of limited by the Supreme Court in 2012 (if not supported on a national level, the IHTPC should least support the rights of individual states to pass their own legislation). For those thinking that SB 1070 was in some ways radical, keep in mind that 1)When the legislation was first proposed in Arizona, the law had 70% support in the state at a time when 70% of people can't agree on anything politically, and 2) Being asked to see your documents when stopped by the police shouldn't be thought of as radical - it's something we do all the time. People can't get a book from a library without proving who they are so why shouldn't we all do the same when stopped by the police?

Additionally, when it comes to legal immigration we are currently a nation that welcomes around 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year. We do so even when the unemployment rate is over 9%. The IHTPC should propose a policy saying that we will significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants brought in until the unemployment rates drops to something less than 6%. This would protect both the jobs of US Citizens and immigrants already here at the same time.

Finally, something gone under the radar under the current administration is that, for virtually the entire history of the country, immigrants applying for visas had to prove their economic stability, had to demonstrate that could stand on their feet financially upon entering the country (a sensible policy). However, this requirement has been hued to the point that individuals looking to come to the US are now eligible to apply for Federal Aide immediately. This is a policy that the IHTPC should look to end immediately.