History tends to reassure us on this point. Elections have assimilated American dissent since 1860. The mark of democracy is submission to the majority. But this time around, if the current figures hold, the rupture will be deepened. As of yesterday, the polls were showing Kerry, 48; Bush, 44; Nader, 6. The first two of these data are not striking; a seesaw between the two principal candidates happens frequently. The Nader factor is troubling, however, because if Bush defeats Kerry by a margin less than the nick taken by Nader, the anti-Bush political community will think itself robbed yet again. It happened to us in 2000, they will be saying, when Gore had the popular vote and we lost by a judicial caprice. Now, if Nader is responsible for a fresh loss, we have to wonder about the reliability of democratic practices.
The kind of people who generate BushAndCheneySuck.com don't make up dissent at an institutional level. If Bush wins, even on account of the Nader factor, it is not likely that the United States will stampede for a Constitutional Convention jettisoning the Electoral College. Such an amendment couldn't get by the states that would be disfranchised on account of it.
But there is a special odium at large in the matter of George Bush. It will seek to release itself by a rabid campaign against him, a campaign which, of course, could be victorious. But there will need to be a tranquilizing factor in the campaign. If, for instance, Bush handles Kerry confidently and dispositively in the three debates, that could provide a sense of democratic vindication. If real progress in Iraq under native rule pivots the scene slightly, but substantially, toward stability, Bush could legitimately profit.
In the absence of such developments, the anti-Bush diehards are headed for a disillusionment likely to affect the democratic culture. What matters, in democratic elections, is not only submission to the majority, but also civil relations.