Yes, the title imitates Orwell's "Pacifism and the War" of 1942; and, no, this piece will not equate any election with any war, much less WWII.

What it will do, however, is quote and very briefly comment upon Orwell's key statement, do the same regarding a question posed by a pacifist who responded to his essay, and then connect the question's astounding error to the current election.

To get right to it, Orwell's essay begins with this assertion:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help that of the other."

In addition to stating an "objective" fact, those lines state a moral truth agreed to by the overwhelming number of citizens who look upon every kind of despotic system and agree with Edmund Burke that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Pacifists, as expected, disagreed vehemently with Orwell, notably poet and leftist sympathizer D.S. Savage, who observes that "Orwell dislikes the French intellectuals licking up Hitler's crumbs" and then asks this shocking question:

"...but what's the difference between them and our intellectuals who are licking up Churchill's?"

(Read the entirety of Savage's "comments" at GeorgeOrwellNovels.com)

Emphasizing that the question quoted above is presented only to illustrate just how maniacally far the human mind is capable of going when it conjures up false equivalencies, this piece now asks, "What's the difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama?"

And it answers simply by explaining why Obama's true-believing supporters, who see a trillion fundamental differences between the two candidates, have gone all-in gaga in their efforts to elect their man.

To wit...

The liberal base is ecstatic that despite raging unemployment/underemployment and the continual erosion of middle class income and wealth, Barack Obama has steadfastly refused to pursue policies that stimulate private sector job growth in favor of passing "stimulus" bills that pay off his political base Chicago Style.

The liberal base is jubilant that given the same painful economic realities, Barack Obama has devoted himself to acts of Government Building (Obamacare, for instance) that create an ever bigger, more dangerously powerful, more costly federal government, the consequences of the nation's rampaging debt and job picture be damned.

The liberal base is overcome with joy now that Barack Obama has established an Apologetic Foreign Policy whereby, for example, the United States takes time to fret a million worries about how it might offend the sensibilities of Libya before it authorizes any action whatsoever to save the lives of Americans on consular US soil under direct attack by heavily armed terrorists.

The liberal base is elated that Barack Obama represents the nation's first redistributionist president (though instead of proper, honest English, they and he prefer to use the insidious euphemism "spread the wealth around").

The liberal base is thrilled that Barack Obama has set the precedent whereby the federal government can take an enormous common stock position in a corporation and therefore not only choose the company's executives but command its strategic decisions, including what kind of products it produces.

The liberal base is euphoric that the number of food stamp recipients has gone through the roof under Barack Obama, thereby providing liberals with a gigantically larger pool of people to regard not as human beings but mere political raw material.

The liberal base is overjoyed that Barack Obama is the first president in history to tell religious organizations whom they can hire and fire as well as what products and services their charitable arms must provide.

The liberal base is rapturous over the thought of how Barack Obama intends to transform an aging Supreme Court by exclusively nominating "empathic" justices who have never met a federal act of commerce control or tax power they didn't love, the same Supreme Court, where just one more Obama Empath will doom the fundamental right the Second Amendment has historically bestowed upon individual citizens.

The liberal base is goose-bump blissful now that Barack Obama has made it clear the first word that comes to his mind when he thinks of how an individual achieves success is "government."

And those bumps become elephant-sized when the liberal base considers how slobberingly lovesick, news censoring, poll fixing elite media automaton "journalists" have become Obama-First to the extent they put every true-believing, leaflet-peddling, old-school Marxist organizer to shame.

That's why the hope here is that any citizen who has been harboring the thought of sitting out this contest because there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major candidates will consider the reality (prayerfully if he or she is religious) that the nation cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama and then not just vote but vow to contact five other conservative, independent, libertarian, or traditionalist voters and remind them of the real choice in this incredibly important election.