I was raised a Republican because of conservative values. When I entered college, I started leaning toward Democratic ideals because I felt it was our obligation to help those less fortunate. But after learning about U.S. history and examining current politics, I realized something—voting Democrat or  Republican would lead to the same result.

For the most part, Democrats and Republicans agree on U.S. policies, Obama and McCain included. In this upcoming election, we are not voting on what the future of the country will be—we are merely voting on how long it will take us to get there.

In the past, there has been very little accountability when it comes to maintaining pre-election policies.

Traditionally, Republicans pledge to decrease the size of the government. But under the current administration, the government is bigger than it has ever been, with spending through the roof and a national deficit of more than $9 trillion.

Democrats, on the other hand, make promises to decrease involvement in unpopular wars. But after the 2006 elections, when the Senate became a Democratic majority, we had another surge in Iraq the next year.

We have no reason to trust that the present candidates will be any different.

McCain may have a goal to keep taxes low, but the country will still be moving toward more government control and programs. One example is his plan to give a refundable tax credit to offset the cost of insurance.

Obama may have a goal to get American troops out of Iraq, but the country will still be supporting an interventionist policy. He plans to leave a strike force in the country.     Neither candidate will put a stop to any overarching goals that they may appear to oppose, let alone reverse those goals.

There are even specific issues that the candidates agree on almost word for word.

For example, Obama proposes a plan to implement a cap-and-trade program with the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

What’s McCain’s policy? He wants to implement a cap-and-trade program with the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 66 percent (below 2005 levels) by 2050.

Good or bad, these candidates’ policies are essentially the same. Besides what they openly agree about, the two candidates even more in common have with what they don’t talk about.

No one talks about the presence of U.S. military in other foreign nations, just military presence in Iraq. The Department of Defense has 5,311 military bases with more than 800 in 39 foreign countries, according to the organization’s 2007 report.

No one talks about the level U.S. income tax in proportion to other countries. Besides countries in the European Union, the United States has the fifth highest income tax out of any country in the world at an average of 30 percent, while Mexico has the 11th highest at an income tax average of 15.6 percent. Instead, the candidates only compare U.S. tax levels to U.S. tax levels in previous years.

No one will talk about how population increase is a key factor in environmentalism. Pollution is calculated by multiplying three factors: The number of people, the amount of energy used per person and the amount of waste the energy use produces. They just talk about the latter two of those factors.

Why are these subjects off the table for discussion?

Seventy-nine percent of Americans want the next president to change directions from Bush’s policies, according to a January Gallup Poll. Americans agree—change is wanted. But in the past, candidates who have vowed for change just went back on their policies after getting into office. Why would the current candidates do anything different?

So, even if the present candidates pledge for change, even if we hope for change, and even if we cast our votes for change—all I can see in the future is more of the same.