 At first glance, the differences between the two candidates for President of the United States in 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, are striking. One is black, the other is white. One paid off his student loans a few years ago, the other was born wealthy. One was formerly a community organizer, the other was a management consultant and private equity executive. Each candidate is doing his best to emphasize his differences from the other. And most commentators have drawn sharp distinctions between the two candidates on foreign policy. Global perceptions of the two men are also noticeably different. Most of the Western world, including most Australians, want Obama to win. In truth, however, the foreign policy similarities between the two men are more striking than the differences. President Obama is not as left-wing and dovish as many believe, and Governor Romney is not as right-wing and hawkish as he would have us believe. President Obama has governed as a cautious realist, focused principally on America's national interests. His speeches are about hope and change, but his foreign policy is about reasonableness and balance. He's also demonstrated a clear willingness to use force, sometimes unilaterally, to protect US security and interests. It is harder, of course, to make judgments about Governor Romney's foreign policies. His few interventions on the topic have not been especially impressive. If we believe his rhetoric, then should he be elected, the foreign policy right-wing is back in business. Romney has criticised Obama for being a serial apologiser, promised a more muscular approach toward America's adversaries, and vowed to usher in a new American century. But in my opinion, Romney's heart is not in it. His character, his work and life experiences indicate that he would more likely be a careful analytical foreign policymaker, who bases his decisions on expert advice and facts rather than intuition. Like Obama, Romney is a cautious, data-driven figure. He thinks with his head, not with his gut. His proclivity for PowerPoint, like Obama's penchant for the teleprompter, speak to a desire for order and control. There are many examples of foreign policy convergence between the candidates. For example, in Asia, Obama's strategy is to cooperate with Beijing, but he also intends to renew America's presence in the region and maintain a balance of forces at a time when there is significant uncertainty about China's future behaviour. Romney's rhetoric on China has been several notches tougher, but he has focused largely on economic matters. I find it hard to imagine him buying into a clash of civilisations with China, or muscling up to Beijing in a provocative manner. A continuation of the Obama approach seems more likely. When it comes to Iran, Obama started off trying to engage the Mullahs, but quickly toughened his policy to encompass a strong sanctions regime and covert and cyber campaigns to slow the nuclear program. Romney has been critical of Obama's approach and described the leadership in Tehran as unalloyed evil, but his stated policy is not noticeably different. He may be more likely than Obama to authorise a military strike to interrupt the nuclear program. Then again, the riskiness of that option stayed George W. Bush's hand, and Romney is a more cautious politician than Bush. There are of course many foreign policy differences between the two men, for example on issues like Russia, Israel and the United Nations. But the policy differences are less than is generally believed. To me, the most important contrast lies in their foreign policy experience. Obama has grown in office to become a skillful and effective commander-in-chief. If Romney were elected, he would have his own learning curve to climb. The biggest question mark concerns personnel. After nearly four years, we have a sense of the staff template Obama prefers, highly competent, disciplined and loyal policy engineers who are largely content to implement his vision rather than argue with him over it. Romney is a more malleable character, so the identity of his foreign policy picks is likely to matter more. Still, even saying this, it is hard to discern a fundamental clash between the two men when it comes to their world views. And even if a president Romney were minded to make instinctive, bold decisions, the lessons the United States has learned so painfully in the past decade would constrain any tendencies toward adventurism. Americans certainly have a foreign policy choice to make in November, and their choice will be felt here in Australia. But the world is not at a crossroads.