One of the most common complaints about American politics can be summarized like this: “It doesn’t matter who wins in November — Republicans and Democrats are all the same.”

The people who make this argument usually cite enormous campaign contributions to both parties, partisan gridlock, the national debt and other problems that infuriate Americans on both sides of the political continuum. While many jaded Americans are right to be concerned about these issues, their attitudes about the homogeneity of the parties is often a rationalization for civic apathy — why bother voting or campaigning if it all comes out the same?

However, this brand of indifference doesn’t make any sense in the 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton offer radically different worldviews, rhetoric and prescriptions for the future of the U.S. — particularly in the international sphere.

For example, consider their respective positions on the importance of NATO.

Trump thinks the “countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense — and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.” This would require our allies to pay far more than the 2 percent of GDP they are currently expected to contribute, and it could mean an eventual American withdrawal from the alliance. Trump has also called NATO “obsolete” and claimed that he “wouldn’t care” if Ukraine joined it or stayed out.

Clinton, on the other hand, thinks NATO is “one of the best investments America has ever made.” She credits the alliance with maintaining global security and insists that Trump’s NATO policy “would reverse decades of bipartisan American leadership and send a dangerous signal to friend and foe alike.” Clinton also worries that retreating from NATO would embolden Russia: “Putin already hopes to divide Europe. If Mr. Trump gets his way, it will be like Christmas in the Kremlin. It will make America and the world more dangerous.”

As Clinton noted in a speech on June 2, these are “two very different visions,” both of which have seismic implications for U.S. foreign policy and the rest of the world.

Trump and Clinton also have “very different visions” on immigration, environmental regulation, gun control, reproductive rights, the Affordable Care Act and almost every other consequential issue. But their divergent perspectives on NATO are among the most informative because they illuminate the chasm between Clinton’s establishment mindset and Trump’s unprecedented hostility toward conventional wisdom in Washington.

Trump is an insurgent outlier who wants to upend many of the institutions (like NATO) and practices (like American power projection in Europe and Asia) that have had broad support for decades. Clinton’s experiences as First Lady, senator and secretary of state have given her an abiding sense of respect for these aspects of our system.

No matter what you think of this year’s raucous election or the candidates it produced, the choices have never been more distinct.

Members of The Capital-Journal’s editorial advisory board are Zach Ahrens,

Matt Johnson, Ray Beers Jr., Laura Burton, Darren Canady, Garry Cushinberry,

Matt Gassen, Mike Hall, Jessica Hosman, Vern McFalls, John Stauffer and Frank Ybarra.