I have posted corrections to Mr. Rivera’s comment, which can be read on his original post here:
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/2008-elections/13773/should-inpendent-minded-voters-rally-to-unity08/

Sincerely,
Bob Roth
VP Online Marketing, Unity08

However, the problem I see with Unity08 is that it is extremely vague on the issues. It intends to allow Unity08 members to vote to nominate two centrist-leaning candidates (one for president and one for vice president) whose views will be the centerpiece of the campaign.

Apparently, the strategy of Unity08 seems to be to build the framework for a third party system first and then decide its stances on the issues later. In my view, this is exactly the OPPOSITE way that third parties should form. In my view, third parties should coalesce around issues first and then build the party only once there is a solid foundation on which their beliefs rest. I argue this because:

1) Successful grassroots campaigns mobilize around issues.

Consider Ralph Nader in 2000. His message wasn’t simply that he was an independent candidate that hated the polarization and partisanship in Washington. He promoted a progressive agenda that talked about the control that corporations had on the political systems.

Consider Howard Dean in 2003. His rapid rise in popularity came from the fact that he spoke out against a war at a time when few people were willing to do so.

Consider Ron Paul today. His surge in support on the internet has come about because of his consistent anti-war stance and courage to take on the establishment within his own party.

2) The long term stability of a third party depends should depend on policy–not personality. Ross Perot was immensely popular during his 1992 Presidential Campaign, but support for his Reform Party quickly fizzled out afterward. Although Perot did bring up some important issues, his candidacy was largely about style over substance. The party didn’t seem to have any core values, leading it to nominate Pat Buchanan in 2000.

3) The cohesiveness of a third party relies upon an acknowledgement of at least some common underlying principals. It is not enough to form a third party on the basis that its members are all “independent-thinkers” who have grown tired of the polarization in Washington. People may consider themselves to be “independent-thinkers” and have completely opposite positions on key political issues. If a third party opens the doors to all “independent-thinkers” regardless of their stances on key political issues, all this does is inoculate this new party with the same polarization and bickering that goes on in Washington.

What is Unity08′s stance on the various issues that dominate the political landscape today?

Here they are in Unity08′s own words:

Unity08 on the Issues

Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues — on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues — which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

In our opinion — since the disintegration of the Soviet Union — our political system seems to have focused more attention on the “important issues” than the “crucial issues.” One result: The political parties have been built to address the interests of their “base” but have failed to address the realities that impact most Americans.

Apparently, Unity08 wants to focus on foreign policy and fiscal/economic policy and ignore personal/social issues. As a civil libertarian, I find this troubling. While I agree with Unity08 that the debate over personal/social issues (i.e. the culture war) has overshadowed the debate over fiscal/economic issues in recent years, the answer is not to simply not address these issues.

American politics during the early and middle portions of the twentieth century was largely dominated by fiscal/economic issues, with “big government” types on the left and “smaller government” types on the right. However, this left-right dichotomy was fundamentally altered during the 1970′s with the emergence of the “New Left” and the “Christian Right.” Now, much of the most heated political arguments arises over social/personal issues such as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, gun control, and lifestyle issues.

By refusing to address these issues, Unity08 is effectively supporting the status quo–leaving us in a limbo-like state in which some of our most basic rights are left undefined and/or unacknowledged. Nowhere in its Issues section does Unity08 even mention the issue of civil liberties. Given the furor over civil liberties that has occurred during Bush’s six and a half years in office, I think Unity08 owes it to the American people to state its basic stance on civil liberties BEFORE people invest countless dollars and hours to its campaign.

Finally, as I’ve often said before, defining what we are talking about is paramount in politics. We throw the terms “liberal” and “conservative” around as if everyone agrees what these terms mean, when this is not at all the case. But if it can be said that “liberal” and “conservative” are ambiguous terms, then that argument is even truer with the terms “moderate.” Moderates do not typically take “centrist” positions on every single issue, but rather, take a mixture of “liberal” and “conservative” stances. As such, one person’s “moderate” may be radically different than another person’s “moderate.”

Among those who are deeply dissatisfied with the platforms of the two major parties, there are those who feel that the government overtaxes, overspends, over-regulates, and spends too much time and resources policing what goes on in our bedrooms as well as the rest of the world while there are also those who conversely feel that the government should tax the rich more, spend more on government programs, regulate businesses more, legislate morality, and rely upon the military to solve the world’s problems. These two groups, the libertarian-leaning types and the communitarian-leaning types have as little in common with each other as liberals do with conservatives, and there’s little incentive for these two groups should work together under a single party’s banner (other than the fact that they both oppose the two major parties).

I would like to see Unity08 challenge our two-party system. But I will withhold any endorsement of Unity08 until its members provide a modest platform spelling out their underlying positions on fiscal/economic issues, social/personal issues, and foreign policy issues.

I like the idea that this is limited to Pres+VP, but then what? How would that, in itself, affect the problem with lobbyists and special interests? The right kind of leadership in the WH would be important, I grant, but I doubt that alone can
overcome the giant hurdles

I also like the idea that the most divisive issues have been delegated to a second tier status.
The trouble is that the public will probably not follow suit, and Congress will keep the issues alive and dividing as a result.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem in Washington stems from the problems in our society, and Washington is more of a reflection than a cause.

I can’t imagine a unity Immigration bill, no matter who is in the WH.

In the meantime, the effect of third parties can be good or bad, and no one can predict which it will be today. My conservative side, for the present, has the upper hand. I’m not ready yet to abandon the 2-party system that has worked since day 1 of this country.

I favor reforming the parties from within. For now.

BTW, claims by MVDG to be ian impartial observer seem odd in the face of his ardent advocacy for both domestin and foreign US policies.

Guest-of-the-President: The top 10 Trailblazers at the end of the competition will each spend fifteen minutes in the reviewing stand with Unity08’s President-elect on Inauguration Day, 2009.

I figure I have a lot better chance winning the lottery.