The race for the White House this November is going to be a familiar struggle between Republicans and Democrats — the traditional two-party system realistically only leaves breathing space for these options. However, there are many other political groups that represent starkly different policies that do not currently have a strong enough voice to win the presidential election. With foreign policy becoming a more heated subject in current debates, focusing on the alternatives offered by third parties as part of their political agenda — even if either Republican or Democratic control is the most likely scenario — can provide necessary insight and diversity for healthy political decision-making.
For 2024’s presidential elections, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. garnered the most publicity out of all the third-party candidates. RFK Jr. embraced a campaign of standing against both the Democrats and Republicans, opting for a “big tent” option that embraces America as a whole. Though he recently decided to suspend his campaign, what made him stand out in terms of diplomatic strategy was his solidly unambiguous policy of isolationism in contrast to Biden’s past interventionist actions and a more radical form of decreased involvement emphasized by Republicans. He identifies the United States’ current prioritization of military power and web of alliances as a danger to global peace and democracy while the current financial support for Ukraine, Taiwan and military operations in the Middle East as a drain of resources.
His plan to cut the military budget by half and divert the money to domestic issues, such as healthcare and education, is a populist move that would also make the United States effectively abandon all of its commitments except its support for Israel. While such a hard stance on isolationism would be ultimately disadvantageous for the United States, talks of directing the budget toward civilian means can indeed bring real change for the welfare of the nation, and this point must not be left only to him to talk about in political debates.
The Green Party’s positions on diplomacy have a distinctively reformist attitude since they recognize the issue of military interventionism as an excessively used tool by the United States. They openly advocate for the reformation of the United Nations Security Council to make the institution more capable of safeguarding peace. To achieve this, the party pushes for the repeal of veto power among the five permanent members — their agenda insists on breaking the power held by major powers to democratize the General Assembly, allowing smaller nations to have a more audible voice internationally. The Green Party also advocates for more action toward international cooperation, advocating for the broad decommissioning of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons through disarmament treaties. They call for the United States to also recognize the International Court of Justice’s rulings and adhere to the rules of conduct for international relations and the core principles of human rights.
These policies offered by the Green Party could put the United States in a more favorable position in global diplomacy as pushing for collaboration with partners and open dialogue with adversaries are useful in reducing tensions across the world. These ideas could also make the United States an active arbiter of standards rather than a trigger-happy policeman of the world, a strategy to which mainstream candidates can make overtures while approaching chaotic geopolitical questions. This position offers a way for the United States to maintain its web of alliances without risking brinkmanship at every crisis — collaboration and dialogue are the traits that characterize the Green Party’s foreign policy.
A final group that we must take into account is a taboo for the United States political climate, yet also an unavoidable and loud community — the left. Socialism in the United States has historically been seen as a treacherous idea that supposedly betrays the right of people to freedom. Today, the left’s position on some of the core practices in U.S. diplomacy raise important moral questions about where the United States stands, not just in politics, but also within history itself.
The United States’ left suffers from factionalism, preventing them from displaying a cohesive platform. However, positions shared commonly between leftist parties include an end to the embargo placed against Cuba, a direct call to recognize Palestine as a state and an end to interference with the internal affairs of foreign nations for the Unites States’ political gains. Their common approach of loud protesting and public action also makes them the stream of politics that has the best chance of having an effect on mainstream United States politics, despite how controversial socialism may be here.
While they realistically have no hope in this election, the essential takeaway regarding these smaller parties is that the causes and positions they advocate for are either ignored or simply swept under the rug by the mainstream. Third-party candidates have the opportunity to speak with vigor to criticize the current state of affairs, which presents the political landscape with two options — either the mainstream can heed these calls and regain public trust by addressing the points utilized by third parties or these smaller movements can exploit the inevitable stagnation by building popular support through public discourse. Foreign policy is only one of many issues for any given election, but especially in today’s chaotic world, the disillusionment suffered by the mainstream might just be a big enough catalyst to force the two-party gridlock in the United States to change toward newer political positions.
Deniz Gulay is a sophomore majoring in history.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.