Obamney?

The most consistent thing about both Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama is hardly their principles or proposals, but rather their incessant determination to convince the public they offer dramatically different visions for America.

But for all the tough rhetoric on taxes, health care or jobs, is it possible we are ignoring the more fundamental similarities of both candidates?

Consider foreign policy. Does either candidate question the success of foreign interventionism, either militarily or economically?

Can we trust either candidate to resist the drumbeats for war against Iran or to stop the use of military drones that have claimed thousands of innocent lives?

Does either challenge the necessity of one country spending as much on national defense as the rest of the world combined? Or offer genuine ideas to find waste, fraud and cronyism in defense spending?

Does either have the courage to make politically unpopular decisions to help balance the budget and prevent the impending American debt crisis?

Neither has offered clear reforms for entitlement programs or proposed meaningful spending cuts. Both believe in government stimulus and bailouts for the biggest banks and corporations.

And, of course, neither candidate questions the cart-blanche authority of the Federal Reserve to print money from nothing, eroding both savings and spending power.

Both support the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, providing government the authority to not only spy on its own citizens, but also detain them indefinitely, without due process.

They may offer different opinions on social issues, but neither is likely to propose changes to marriage or abortion laws, let alone consider alternatives for the failed War on Drugs.

There are slight differences between the two candidates, and having a preference for one or the other is understandable.

But what really changes between an Obama or Romney presidency?

We must admit both candidates are committed to preserving the status quo of American politics: a two-party system dominated by special interests in which politicians are more concerned with electability than solutions, and citizens are left void of real political choice.

— Connor Sullivan