Apparently I'm still part of the club...

I have, in the past, said that I was born a Republican. My political ideology was developed before I knew which either party really stood for. However, I find myself among the many that in recent years have discovered a Republican party that is drifting away from what we consider to be the importance of small government in order to appease its "base" of social conservatives. A government that is truly small stays out of the personal lives of individuals, and believes that by empowering them to make their own decisions we can improve society.

Today, the NY Times reported that Republican leadership is circulating a checklist of Republican stances that members should conform to. If those running for seats in this election cycle do not support 7 of 10 positions on the list, they can lose party funding and/or endorsement. The list is as follows:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

As for me, I can approve of 6 of 10 strongly, and "loosely" approve of 2 more. I guess this means I can stay on the team. The question is do I really want to? I've written before in other forums about the importance of third parties in America, and how the political landscape will continue to be ugly, accusatory, polarized mess until a serious third party comes to speak for the true middle ground of America.

Have multi-party states been more effective in other countries? No. But unlike in the United states, these parties are often forced into some form of ruling coalition in order to appoint an Executive. Given our electoral structure, there is no reason to think that a multiparty legislature would not work in America. Coalitions could be formed around individual issues. This would have the added benefit that it is less likely an executive would veto legislation out of pure political posturing.

So, let this be a call to all third party candidates. Socialist, libertarian, slightly nutty TEA party conservatives (I'm talking to you, NY-23)... Given the polarization our country has faced the last 8 years, and will continue to do so for the next 3, now is one of those moments when people, with all their discontent at the current state of affairs, their anger at mudslinging campaigns instead of issue based debate, their desire to have a government that finally works for them and gets things done rather than push their own ideas on morality, that viable third party candidates, who have ideas to improve this country, will have a chance to make a difference.

For anyone interested in true third party reform, visit http://www.indymovement.com/ . It might not match everyone's needs, but Chris Daggett's campaign in NJ showed just how ready Americans are to listen to a real alternative, even if they didn't show it on election day.