Eight days from now, fewer than one in two eligible voters will vote. Nonetheless, media outlets are saturated with stories, rumors and predictions about a change. We’re all expected to assume that a Democratic victory will change our lives and government. Of course this doesn’t apply to anyone in Iraq. The barrages of news, lawn signs and bumper stickers aren’t about them. So despite the probable power switch in Congress, the bulk of Bush policy will remain intact. Politicians are a lot more bipartisan than they’d have you believe. One issue they share — and their silence on it should reinforce just how much it is taken for granted — is the value of an Iraqi life.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s “New Direction Plan” does not acknowledge the corpses in Iraq, thousands upon thousands killed by American weapons. And the President, as late as last week, stated that the casualty total in Iraq has not changed since December 2005. The two parties running America are certain — Iraqi lives are without value.

The civilized world reacted with horror when the United States chose to invade and occupy Iraq. Yet after the election, our leaders don’t plan to change a thing about the Occupation that’s killing Iraqis. So far from the core of global values, America’s rulers have strayed from the pack of respectable. We are not a nation of non-conformists; we are a nation of war, and that sets us apart more than anything else. Civilized people, worldwide, continue to vociferously oppose Bush and our nation’s willingness to bomb, bully and bunker-bust. In the eyes of the six billion non-Americans across the planet, we are not unique, nor are we exceptional — we are objectionable. In a world more closely resembling something holy or just, our leaders would hang. What makes Iraq a defining moral issue of our generation is how obviously the government lied, and how plainly Americans rejected reality — no one in the world thought Saddam Hussein was worth invading, and no one in the world thinks the United States should continue to occupy Iraq.

We can be certain that victory for the Democrats will change none of this, as Democrats embrace American crimes against humanity as much as Republicans do. Those Democrats who do oppose the War on Iraq argue against its costs in dollars, not lives, and demand that the U.S. leave Iraq to save money, not Iraqis. Pelosi’s blueprint promises to “hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses … [and] wasted billions of taxpayer dollars,” but not for the blood on their hands. In debates between candidates across the country, sound bites peppered with “stay the course” and “strategy for victory,” are exchanged, while no major candidate dares challenge the right of Americans to kill abroad. If only WMDs were there, we are expected to assume, this would all be worth it. Neither ask how many Iraqis have to die for the supposed benefit of Americans. They debate “pre-war intelligence” and “wiretaps” without shame or irony, while the planet chortles in response, “only the unintelligent would choose to start a war.” No one in Congress was duped by Bush; he acted on something the Democrats and Republicans share — a willingness to kill. If this sounds hyperbolic, you’re out of touch with the non-American world.

The Democrats have insisted that they will not press for impeachment, but instead will investigate the Bush regime. They will use their subpoena power, we hear. Pelosi has said her party, once in power, will not “have the time” to impeach the President. This mind-boggling moral failure is bipartisan complicity at its best, accepting the deaths of perhaps 655,000 Iraqi human beings. Why isn’t Pelosi’s priority ending the slaughter? Why do Iraqis have to wait to end their torture? To prioritize gas prices or lobbying reform over living people is a real statement of political philosophy in the USA today.

Given the body count, which makes Darfur look placid, there are no other issues we should be considering in our march to the ballot box. The Pentagon just announced it was preparing to keep current troops levels through 2010, and informed observers hint that the Bush regime may force out Prime Minister al-Maliki in favor of a military ruler, scuttling the “democracy” to save the country from itself. If this sounds bizarre, read about South Vietnam and America’s history with the leaders there we bought, supported, then killed.

We cannot accept or tolerate this state of affairs, folks, much damn longer. We should not express shock for a moment when the next attack on American civilians occurs, for we are actively killing scores of civilians elsewhere. Someone will retaliate, again, because Americans keep electing and accepting evil and its “lesser” twin.

Given that “impeachment is off the table,” the Democrats are opposed to the Bush Regime in only the narrowest of ways. Twelve of its Senators did, after all, vote to allow the President, with zero checks and no balancing, to suspend habeas corpus and hold anyone on the planet — citizen or not — indefinitely. The “maverick” Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, cannot make any progress to censure the President for, of all the things he’s done, wiretapping.

Americans who value human life are the values voters neither Republicans nor Democrats want. Despite rumors of Bush supporters advocating “a culture of life” or a “pro-life Christian agenda,” his and Pelosi’s supporters are the same who don’t give a damn about Iraqis. Years from now, when someone writes about Americans choosing a “lesser-evil” in the Democrats this election, history will be unkind to those who elect candidates wishing to reform the War on Iraq instead of end it. And soon, those who wish to do us harm will retaliate against us all, realizing that Americans who attach no value to Iraqi life should not expect others to value their own.

Jeff Purcell is a graduate student in Africana Studies. He can be reached at jlp56@cornell.edu. Brutal Honesty appears Mondays.