In both of their “debates” thus far, both candidates have referred to this or that “fundamental difference.” But let’s be clear on something: they both have a fundamental similarity, a similarity more fundamental than any – and I do mean any – difference between them.

They both believe that in the end every solution to every problem, from the healthcare “crisis” to our economic woes, will be coming from Washington, D.C., and ought to come from Washington. Whether in the form of nationalized healthcare system or in the form of a $5,000.00 refundable tax credit, they both believe the solution will, and ought to be, coming from Washington. Whether in the form of a tax cut for 95% of us or a tax but for businesses, getting our economy back on track is a job for Washington. (Indeed, deciding what track our economy should be on is also a job for Washington.) Whether by drilling-plus or conservation-plus, the solution to our fuel crisis will come out of Washington, and require an "investment" from Washington.

Pick the problem of your choice. The solution must come from Washington. If Washington isn't working on it then, for all practical purposes, no one is.

In short, they both believe in the omnicompetent state.

Their fundamental difference really amounts to this: One thinks his omnicompetent-state policies are superior to his opponent’s omnicompetent-state policies.

The question before us isn’t really which member of the Senate ought to be President of the union of states which comprise our nation. The question before us, ostensibly, is which wing (i.e. Left[Democrat] or Right [Republican]) of the politburo of the Omnicompetent-State Party is to receive the General-Secretary’s chair.