I am wishing to comment on the lack of coverage in the Daily on the activities in this presidential-campaign year of the nation’s third-largest political party.

Yet you devote plenty of coverage to a new political party whose existence is due to the cult of personality surrounding its leader.

The vacillation seen among the electorate both in Iowa and nation-wide indicates an extreme dissatisfaction with the two party system.

In 1992, voter dissatisfaction with the Republican Party led to a landslide for the Democrats nationwide.

In 1994, dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party led to a Republican landslide in both Iowa and nationally.

Now, in 1996, the elections are setting up to be another landslide for the Democrats, including President Clinton and Senator Harkin.

Voters are being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, not for a candidate with real ideas and a desire to bring real reform to a government that has become too large and unwieldy, and too intrusive in our lives, both economically and socially.

During the Iowa caucus campaign, analysts often said of Sen. Bob Dole that “his support was a mile wide but an inch deep.”

The Dole campaign continues to be plagued by a lack of enthusiasm for a candidate who has no vision, no plans and no desire to change the status quo.

The same can be said for President Clinton, who has advanced no overriding philosophy other than to follow what the latest polls indicate that he should support.

Both parties offer old, tired platforms big on preserving the status quo and supporting the failed policies of the past 30 years that have led to the current disasters of the budget deficit, imminent Social Security and Medicare crises, the welfare culture, education, the environment, foreign policy bungling, illegal immigration, increasing crime and drug abuse, stagnant wages, ever-increasing taxes, loss of personal freedoms established by the Bill of Rights, and a decreasing standard of living.

The voters of America want a smaller, more-efficient, less intrusive government.

President Clinton recognized this in his State of the Union address, but his actions of the past year have shown that he does not truly believe what he says.

Sen. Dole has not presented a viable alternative.

The two major candidates have shown that no matter who wins, things will not change, unless a message is sent to Washington in the form of a strong showing by a third candidate.

The status quo will be maintained at least until 2001.

There is a candidate running for president whose platform is built around a smaller, more-efficient, and less-intrusive government.

His name is Harry Browne, the candidate for the Libertarian Party, the third-largest political party in the United States.

While he has little chance of winning on Election Day, a strong showing by Harry Browne will send a message to whoever wins that Americans are tired of failed big-government policies and are ready for a change that will free up more money in voters’ pockets and more liberty in voters’ lives.

Harry Browne, the author of “Why Government Doesn’t Work,” offers a clear, articulate platform on where America needs to go in the 21st century.

He pushes for a re-evaluation and an end to the War on Drugs, which has cost the U.S. billions of dollars, made a few drug lords very rich and put one-third of all African-American males somewhere in the justice system.

An emphasis on fighting demand rather than supply could effectively wipe out drug use across the nation.

This strategy has been used to devastate the tobacco industry, and there is no reason it could not work on illegal drugs as well. Harry Browne also supports replacing the Social Security system with a system of retirement annuities and IRAs which will not only support those dependent on Social Security today, but also provide a nest egg for Baby Boomers and Generation Xers who will have no Social Security waiting for them when they retire.

Harry Browne wants to abolish the IRS and sharply reduce Federal income taxes, sending many of the current functions of the Federal government back to more-responsive and more-locally-responsible state governments, as is mandated in the Tenth Amendment.

Harry Browne has been endorsed by radio talk show hosts Michael Reagan, Mark Scott, Patrick Halprin, Mark Wainwright, Dan Gregory, Deborah Ray, Carl Wigglesworth, John Buttrick, Dmitri Vassiros, Alan Colmes, Gil Gross, and Art Bell.

Harry Browne has also received strong support in ringing editorials in the Denver Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Franklin Review Appeal and two columns in the Washington Post..

Nevertheless, when the national media looks at third-party candidates, the emphasis is always on Ross Perot, who has advocated no viable vision and appears to be running as an ego trip, not as someone who can work within the political system to change the role of government in Americans’ lives.

His vacillation in 1992 on whether or not to run for president leaves one wondering whether he is truly dedicated to serving the American people.

Harry Browne has never vacillated in his unflinching support for Libertarian principles.

I realize there may not be much news about the Browne campaign coming over the Associated Press wires where you get your news from.

I would like to request complete reporting of any news you do get from the Browne campaign.

The time is ripe for a real change, as American and Iowan voters have shown convincingly in recent elections.

Harry Browne may not win in November, but a strong showing by him will show whoever does win that Americans are serious about their disappointment in both political parties, and if they do not fundamentally change how government functions in the 21st century, the American people will not reward them on Election Day.

Graduate Student

Genetics