One of the oft-heard gripes of this election cycle is the Democrats’ desire to return the national debate to the “domestic agenda” (in which they believe they possess the upper hand) rather than the war on Iraq (which it is speculated that Republicans hold the advantage on).

In the interest of fairness, let’s examine the merits of the “domestic agenda” put forth by the Democrats. Would this agenda include crossing party lines to put a torch to civil liberties through the most grossly misnamed piece of legislation ever passed – the USA PATRIOT Act -which gave sweeping new powers to federal law enforcement officials who have yet to prove that they won’t abuse the ones they possess already, to entrust the government to detain legal residents of the United States without trial, and to try citizens suspected of terror in secret courts?

Or perhaps they would care to point to their shameless attempts to muzzle political speech through the McCain-Feingold act, which, among its ostensible aims of “eliminating the corrupting influence of money in elections,” effectively bans “issue ads” by third parties acting outside of candidate campaigns within 60 days of an election – is this the outrageous restrictions of liberty that pass for the Democratic agenda? (Of note perhaps is the fact that the proponents of said law couldn’t be bothered to apply it to themselves in this election – rather, the provisions of McCain-Feingold do not take effect until the next election cycle).

Of course, it would be unfair to limit the scope of this examination to the Democrats’ reluctance to stand up for liberty. When it comes to handing out entitlements for political benefit, Democrats can seem to only scramble to abandon their principled objections to so-called “corporate welfare” (and for that matter fiscal prudence), ramming through both a massive airline bailout to airlines that were failing long before Sept. 11 along with a $410 billion farm subsidy bill which largely serves to line the pockets of the politically well-connected rather than the average family farmer. One has to wonder then how Democrats stand to hold any moral ground to complain about the deficits brought about by the President’s tax cut when their own fiscal incontinence (in cooperation with that of the Republicans) helped bring about the current budget crisis we face today.

Alas, many Democrats will complain that their agenda is being unfairly distorted, that truly the “domestic agenda” that triumphs so is instead one of “important new entitlements” on which our entire future hinges – entitlements like a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, which is a somewhat astonishing promise to make, seeing as many governments (including the federal government) are running massive deficits right now. One wonders, then, where money for new entitlements will come from, other than by soaking younger workers far from retirement.

Naturally, Republicans are not immune to such blatant pandering either – the question that separates the two is just one of magnitude rather than principle.

Indeed, where is the fundamental separation between these two parties? The difference appears to simply be a superficial one. Perhaps then the reason Democrats may find their agenda drowned out by issues like war in Iraq may very well be because they have failed to effectively act in any way as an opposition party – from conspiring with Republicans in the Senate to undermine fundamental civil liberties by passing the PATRIOT Act 98-1 to providing only token opposition to unilateral action in Iraq, Democrats have effectively made themselves just a degenerate version of the Republican Party. Washington needs only one party hell-bent on smothering liberty – and that party already resides in the White House.

It need not be this way – if you don’t let it happen. This election, don’t vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Don’t simply vote against a candidate – use your vote as a means of protest: Vote third-party. By attempting to vote for the less unpalatable of two bad candidates, it simply conveys tacit approval of bad governance, not a repudiation of the status quo.

Consider this: Democrats have long promised to be the guardians of personal liberty – yet look at how quickly a crisis has turned them against this avowed end. Likewise, Republicans constantly have preached to be the party of smaller government, yet time and time again they have taken the lead in creating ever-expanding federal bureaucracy, eroding the safeguards placed upon our constitutional freedoms.

In the end, neither party can fairly claim to be a champion of protecting liberty or smaller government – rather, the two parties exist solely for the purpose of bickering over trivial aspects of scale. Some choice indeed.

If you believe in the vision of the Founding Fathers of limited government and free markets, consider voting Libertarian. Or if you just can’t stand the idea of free markets and open trade, consider voting Green or Reform. Voting for the “lesser of two evils,” however, is simply throwing your vote away.

Steve

Skutnik is a graduate student in nuclear physics from Ames.