As the November elections draw nearer, constituents are preparing for all-out war. Firmly entrenched, they are ready to fight to the last man, woman and child for their respective candidates. This is, after all, the "the most important election of our lifetime" - well, at least in the last four years.

The prevailing opinion is that this is a two-party nation. As such, we are expected to cast our votes accordingly. For frustrated Americans who are tired of a burgeoning federal bureaucracy and the erosion of freedom, that typically means swallowing our pride on election day and voting for the "lesser of two evils."

The "lesser of two evils" is a term heard quite often around election time. Republicans especially like to employ this term when outlining the duty of conservative- and libertarian-minded voters to support the GOP.

One key argument favored by believers in the "lesser of two evils" myth is the appeal for smaller (i.e., less expensive and less intrusive) government. We are encouraged to vote for the GOP because it is the only viable party that claims to stand for smaller government. Sure, government will grow under a Republican administration - it even grew under Ronald Reagan - but at least it won't grow as much as it would with a Democrat in power. Any hope of rolling back the size and scope of government can only come from within the Republican Party. Therefore, if you want to rein in the state, you should vote Republican.

This argument, however, is misleading. It makes the flawed assumption that the Republican Party actually stands for smaller government. When we look at what has happened with George W. Bush at the helm, we can see that government has only grown more expensive and more intrusive.

President Bush has spent more of our tax dollars in the last three-and-a-half years than Bill Clinton did during the previous eight. Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute break down the cost of Bush's government:

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. ... According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Sadly, the cost of government goes beyond mere fiscal burdens. The expansion of the state under the current administration has left us less free now than we were before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But because Republicans couldn't bring themselves to oppose their president, liberty has been sacrificed for a perceived safety.

The Patriot Act was marketed as a necessary tool to help combat the growing threat of global terrorism. It was so vital to national security that it sailed through Congress with virtually no debate. In fact, most members of Congress didn't even bother to read it.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to vote against the legislation, told Insight Magazine, "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. ... Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

The Patriot Act modifies existing laws governing surveillance and information gathering. As a result, every American is now a potential suspect and a possible threat to the security of these United States.

In addition to the sanctioning of "sneak-and-peek" warrants, which allow law enforcement officers to secretly invade a private residence without notifying the owner, the Act goes so far as to redefine "domestic terrorism." The new definition includes activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state." This could be applied to any "dangerous" crime, even crimes that would normally fall under the jurisdiction of a particular state. In the near future, we may see "terrorism" defined in such a way that just about every right wing militia (think Timothy McVeigh) and pro-life organization (think abortion clinic bombers) could be considered a domestic terrorist threat. If you think it can't happen, just look at how the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was used to persecute anti-abortion activists.

Of course, the Patriot Act isn't the only example of government encroaching on our liberties. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act essentially killed freedom of speech in American politics. This draconian law places unreasonable and unconstitutional restrictions on how citizens can spend their own money and on what they are allowed to say.

For example, under the new "soft money" ban, a private website dedicated to the support or defeat of a particular candidate could be in violation of federal law unless the website owner's identity was disclosed and the appropriate reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Not only that, it would be illegal for a concerned citizen to pay for an ad that criticized a candidate or political party and have it printed in the newspaper within 60 days of a general election. And this is supposed to be the "Land of the Free"?