DAYTON, Ohio – In the 1972 presidential campaign, some of the wags on Democrat George McGovern's press bus composed this little ditty, which we sang with gusto on the way to auto factories and union halls: "Why, O-why, O-why-O, do we keep coming back to O-hi-o?"  In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.  Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.  We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.  Of course we knew why, theoretically. Ohio then, as now, was the ultimate swing state in presidential elections. But those of us who bothered to get off the bus and talk to voters back then — voters who weren't part of a captive audience rounded up for McGovern — knew that the little ditty was not just rhetorical. McGovern would get 38% of the Ohio vote that November to nearly 60% for Richard Nixon.  Those kinds of blowouts are rare —Ronald Reagan repeated it in 1984 — but normally elections here are much closer. Regardless of the size of the victory, no Republican has ever made it to the White House without winning Ohio.  So here we are again, with another tight race. I now live at Ground Zero, bombarded by ads for President Obama and Mitt Romney, both of whom were in Ohio speaking on the economy last week. Having lived in 11 states and every region of the country, and having covered or closely observed presidential elections since 1968, I should be some kind of political sage. But the contradictory attitudes of voters captured by pollsters here and across the nation are testing my sagacity.  On average, almost 60% of Americans think the country is on the "wrong track." According to Gallup, 64% fear that big government is the "biggest threat" to the nation. Almost three-fourths of Americans say they favor a free market over a government-managed economy. A lopsided majority want Obama's health care reform plan struck down. Yet, Obama continues to hold his own against Romney.  I understand the math on party loyalty. What doesn't compute for me is how this could be a close election. But I have a scary theory: While some independents, who are growing in numbers and will decide this thing, understand instinctively what's at stake, not nearly enough do — or care.  I never imagined that a president, in only one term, could set up such a stark choice for voters. We can recommit ourselves to free enterprise as the creator of prosperity for all who are willing to work for it, or embrace an entitlement society represented in the incredible Obama cartoon ad that promises cradle-to-grave government support for a girl named "Julia." That ad, like the one attacking Romney's past affiliation with the "vultures" at Bain Capital, is simply a proxy for the real issue: Which way do we want the country to go?  This is not about taxing the super-rich more, or maintaining a safety net for the truly needy, or locking up a bunch of Wall Street crooks. I'm for all those things. And it's not about gay marriage or contraceptives or too much fat in our diets. It's about preserving American capitalism or gravitating to a form of European democratic-socialism. And about the kind of country we want to be, or reclaim.  The most interesting book I've read this year is Charles Murray's Coming Apart, which documents what happened to white Americans culturally and economically in the period of 1960 to 2010. Murray's writings are often controversial, but some of his conclusions in this book are not what you'd expect from a libertarian conservative. Most notably, he contends that the roughly 20% of white Americans in the upper-middle and upper classes have used their education, work ethic, family focus and inbreeding to segregate themselves, to the detriment of the rest of society.  At the same time, the 30% of whites in the lower class have become increasingly dysfunctional, with more single mothers, less education, and more unemployed or underemployed adults.  I know enough people in both groups to agree with Murray, although he gives too much credit to the presence or absence of the "founding virtues" and not enough credit to a changing American economy.  And the relevance of all this to the presidential campaign … is?  Owing to various economic forces, (outsourcing, illegal immigration, bankruptcies and technological efficiencies), the middle class is being pulled in two directions. Unfortunately, the downward pull is stronger.  The Obama solution is to have the federal government heavily subsidize those caught in the downdraft, which is why the number of people on government assistance is at an all-time high. That's a political strategy you'd expect from a liberal Democrat who gets caught saying the private sector is in fine shape (and has to rebuke himself for his fleeting moment of candor) while bemoaning the loss of government jobs.  The Romney solution, on the other hand, is to create an environment where entrepreneurialism can thrive, with the risks that entails: less government regulation, targeted tax breaks (including on more than $1 trillion in U.S. profits parked in foreign banks) and incentives for investment that have a real punch.  It's a clear choice. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's better than any other economic system ever devised. Swing state Ohio needs more of it. And if Romney wants to win, he needs to keep coming back to Ohio, singing that tune.  Don Campbell, a former Washington journalist and journalism lecturer, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors and lives in Dayton, Ohio.
Don Campbell: In Ohio, our votes will pick between recommitting ourselves to free enterprise or embracing an entitlement society.