Stacking the candidates

[illusionofjoy]

While most people are focused on the Super Bowl this weekend, I'm not interested in football or the commercials surrounding the game. Thus, I thought this would be an opportune time for what some might call self-flagellation: doing a high level dissection of the claimed positions of those who aim to occupy the White House.

"Why would you do that," you may ask, "when we all know that it's going to be Barack Obama versus Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum?" Good question - and one which reveals one of the main problems with the system of elections in the United States: the reinforcement of the duopoly. With every election cycle the United States swings a pendulum and it is only a matter or time before it goes one way or the other. However, the thing about a pendulum is - for better or worse - it can only go so far one way or the other. So, as the Republicans move rightward to become not a conservative party, but an actively regressive party the Democrats follow along, eschewing their former progressive glory for policies which more reflect maintaining the status quo (i.e.: Republicanism during the Eisenhower era).

It should come as no surprise that political parties change over time. Over 200 years ago, the Democrats and Republicans were a single party: the Democratic-Republican Party. Their main rivals were The Whigs. In fact, for quite some time the Republicans were what we'd now refer to as a "third party" until The Whigs ingloriously imploded with an absurd strategy of running four Presidential candidates simultaneously, thus allowing the Republican Party to rise up to fill the void.

Anyone who tells you that you only have two choices at the polls this November is only partially correct. While the system is set up to maintain the duopoly, there is always this third option: refuse to engage the "system" how they want you to engage it. There are historical precedents for great changes being made and such change can still be achieved, but it won't be easy and it won't happen in the near future. When a critical mass of the populace accepts the pain of independence that's when things change. It only takes for people to cease fearing being "outsiders" for the outside to become inside.

But I digress...let's get back to the business of dissecting the positions of the would-be Presidents. For this exercise I'm digging up every candidate I can find who has officially declared his or her candidacy. To try and simplify matters, I'll be commenting on four main policy areas: Economy, Environment, Foreign Policy and Social Justice. It's not a great amount of detail, but it's enough to get a basic taste (and let's face it: who wants more when most candidates leave a horrible aftertaste). So, without further ado, here are the tables of the candidates:

Democratic Party
Candidate	Positions
	Economy	Environment	Foreign Policy	Social Justice
Barack Obama	Argues that free-trade agreements are necessary for the health of the economy. Claims that tax cuts encourage small business growth as well as stimulating manufacturing (particularly for "green" industries).	The pertinent section of Obama's website is entitled "Energy and the Environment" which is apt given that all of the President's environmental initiatives are tied towards energy independence and investing in "green" energy alternatives.	Under the section titled "National Security" Obama trumpets his success in bringing home American troops from Iraq. However, he makes no mention of bringing them home from Afghanistan. Also missing is his braggadocio over killing Osama bin-Laden which was so prevalent during the State of the Union address. Unsurprisingly however, his veiled nod to the possibility of war with Iran during that same address is also absent.	Trumpets the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as well as his signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, however makes no claim that his stance on gay marriage has evolved into something sentient and his administration's treatment of women in his employ (i.e.: Elizabeth Warren) is - to be polite - less than stellar.
Darcy Richardson	Proposes a second stimulus package to jump-start the American economy as well as a moratorium on home foreclosures. Also proposes a federal work program similar to The New Deal.	Few concrete positions stated, save for stridently opposing Keystone XL.	"A Richardson Administration will...bring an immediate end to the war in Afghanistan while fighting for a drastic 33% to 50% reduction in military spending."	Criticises the Obama administration for caving "in the face of Republican opposition when it came to naming and fighting for Elizabeth Warren’s nomination to head the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."
Aldous C. Tyler	States that the war-based economic model is unsustainable. Would target bailouts directly to people in need, not corporations. Supports an FDR style public-works program akin to The New Deal to combat unemployment.	"We support science-based policies to curb and mitigate the effects of climate change; carbon taxes on fossil fuels to reflect true environmental costs; elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear power, waste incineration, and biofuels; clean fuel mandates; adoption of energy efficiency standards that reduce energy demand economy-wide; building an efficient low-cost public transportation system; adoption of a national zero waste policy. A sustainable society needs clean, green jobs based on renewable energy, energy conservation, organic agriculture, local food production/distribution, mass transit, waste management/recycling, and similar practices that sustain the environment."	"We call for the complete and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and all other regional conflicts; the immediate dissolution of private security contracts for these conflicts, and the immediate cessation of payments to private contractors who are in any way associated with these conflicts."	Under the heading of "Human Rights/Civil Liberties," Aldous calls for a repeal of the PATRIOT Act, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the restoration of habeas corpus.
Green Party
Candidate	Positions
	Economy	Environment	Foreign Policy	Social Justice
Roseanne Barr	No positions stated on campaign website.
Jill Stein	All four of the umbrella issues above are addressed via Stein's "Green New Deal." Basically, what Stein is proposing is a massively updated and expanded version of FDR's original New Deal with a particular focus on economic justice, expanding the social safety net and protecting the environment. Perhaps implying a philosophy that everything connected and in contrast to legacy party candidates, Stein does not pander when presenting her platform by breaking it down into bite-sized pieces; you have to read the whole thing.
Justice Party
Candidate	Positions
	Economy	Environment	Foreign Policy	Social Justice
Rocky Anderson	Places the lion's share of the blame for the current economic crises on the Federal Reserve. However, instead of calling to end the Fed, proposes that the organisation be subject to checks and balances similar to those imposed on braches of government. In being more effectively regulated itself, Anderson argues that the Fed be a more effective regulatory agency. Aside from that Anderson calls for fiscal responsibility by raising taxes on the rich to support social programs, arguing that draconian cuts to such programs leave us unable to compete as a nation.	No specific position stated.	"The U.S. needs to be engaged internationally, but in a constructive manner -- quite the opposite of our nation's conduct, particularly since 9/11. We should make clear what the U.S. once made clear (but has apparently forgotten or ignored) in the Kellogg-Briand Pact (and again at the Nuremberg Tribunal, then again in the U.N. Charter): wars of aggression (attacks on other nations that have not attacked the U.S. or which are not about to attack the U.S.) are illegal and strictly prohibited. Also, all wars since WWII have been in violation of the War Powers Clause of our Constitution."	States that the decision to have an abortion "should be between a woman, her doctor, and anyone else she wants to have involved." Supports full marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
Republican Party
Candidate	Positions
	Economy	Environment	Foreign Policy	Social Justice
Newt Gingrich	Favors drastically reducing corporate taxes and implementing a flat income tax of 15%. Also blames "excessive regulation" for destroying businesses and would roll back such in order to stimulate the economy and create jobs.	Gives a passing nod to "clean energy" after many column inches dedicated to opening up land for more shale extraction and offshore drilling.	Nothing specific which would set Gingrich apart from George W. Bush. Succinctly: stay the course.	Gingrich has the same stance on fetuses and the elderly: life is sacred and only God gets to decide when it ends. Furthermore, completely ignoring the First Amendment, he thinks that religious expression in the public square needs special protection.
Ron Paul	Wants to require Congress to pass a balanced budget each year. Blames the Federal Reserve for most of the nation's economic woes; would audit it and regardless the results of the audit, he would abolish it. Would eliminate most income and property taxes.	Would eliminate the EPA and lift "government roadblocks" on coal and nuclear power.	Would bring all American troops home immediately and return to a policy of non-intervention.	Stringently anti-choice, Paul would call for an immediate repeal of Roe vs. Wade, thus leaving the legality of abortion as a patchwork state by state toss of the coin. On the topic of illegal immigration, Paul would come down hard on illegal immigrants, going so far as to strip away the citizenship of their children born in the United States.
Mitt Romney	"Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem."	No position stated.	"Our country today faces a bewildering array of threats and opportunities. As president, Mitt Romney will safeguard America and secure our country’s interests and most cherished ideals. The unifying thread of his national security strategy is American strength. When America is strong, the world is safer. It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation for an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies."	No position stated.
Rick Santorum	Believes in "spending cuts and entitlement reform." To wit, Social Security, Welfare and so-called "Obamacare" are all on the chopping block.		Suspects Iran of being on the brink of developing nuclear weapons with the intent of destroying Israel and western civilization. Wants to work with Israel to determine "a proper military response" to the situation.	Vehemently against abortion and even contraception; opposed to gay marriage, recently comparing it to polygamy. Once compared homosexuality to bestiality, which earned Santorum much backlash from the GLBT community.

And there it is, all ten candidates for President stacked up against one another. Obviously this is in no way an in-depth look at all of them and much policy nuance is missing. However, one gets the basic idea. I'm sure that if I decide to compile another chart like this as the campaign season evolves there will be plenty of changes.

Right now I just want someone to buy me a conciliatory drink for visiting all of those Republican websites in my meager attempt to appear somewhat objective.