Unity '08?

I seem to be reading a lot about "third party" candidates lately. By way of example, Unity '08 is an attempt to run an alternative ticket for President/Vice President in 2008. They frame their platform into "Crucial" (terrorism, national debt, etc.) and "Important" (gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) issues. Though they are very careful not to stake out a position, it can be assumed that they would generally consider themselves "centrists." They are attempting to get a split ticket (Rep and Dem) as Pres and Veep, though not in any particular order. It is telling that they would like to draw their candidate from the "established" parties.

Peggy Noonan has her take on this in the WSJ today and points out that the divide seems to be a DC vs. USA or Elites vs. Everyman. I think she is on to something when she says that the government is out of touch, but the sickness runs deeper. Maybe she should characterize it as Royalty vs. Peasants.

The problem with a third party is that for one to really catch fire, it has to 1) make an enemy of that which it seeks to be and 2) remain loyal to his/her philosophy. By the first I meant that policy issues are not as divisive as you might think on the Crucial issues. Raise your hand if you are in favor of terrorism? A high national debt? Are you in favor of GREATER dependency on foreign oil? MORE corruption? I did not think so.

But the achievement of these goals are were reasonable minds differ and the difference comes down to one metric: the role of government. That is, do you believe a bigger governrment effort will make things better. I would suspect the problem with Unity is that they would say, "yes." I suspect most Americans would want a clear articulation on how much government is required to achieve all these laudable goals and IF the government should be a part of the solution.

I am a rabid free marketeer. I believe that given a blind choice between some government and a lot of government, I would choose NO government. But I also realize that there are times when government policy and resources are a good thing. The first, obviously, is national defense. The second is "interstate commerce" or more accurately refereeing the battle between the states (a largely underappreciated effort). Finally, there is the broad charge of providing for the "common good." I believe in a safety net for citizens that is real, but temporary (unemployment insurance is an example). We need to abolish Social Security and Medicare in their current form and replace them with something market based.

Beyond those...let's make the states be the accountable entity. Push the responsibility down the political food chain. Go as far as Town Meeting (remember it is not "a" Town Meeting or "the" Town Meeting, it is simply - Town Meeting). Cut federal taxes and let the states and localities decide was is worth spending money on.

An anti-government platform would ignite a third-party candidacy. Everything else is politics as usual.