Washington ungovernable.

• Author: Smick, David M.
• Position: From The Founder - Editorial

WASHINGTON POLITICAL INSIDERS are calling the U.S. presidential race the most important contest in the history of mankind. Maybe so, but not for the reasons most partisans offer. This race is important because these are particularly dangerous times for the world economy--and neither candidate is saying what U.S. domestic and international economic policy will be over the next four years.

As for the race, conventional wisdom says it will be extraordinarily close a la the 2000 race. But a razor-thin victory would be contrary to precedent. Incumbent presidents almost always win or lose by relatively large margins. At this point, roughly 45 percent of Americans hate George W. Bush with a passion reaching the level of the pathological. Another 45 percent fervently support the President despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq not to mention the embarrassment of the Abu Ghraib prison abuses.

That leaves 8-10 percent as the targeted, undecided vote. Or to be more precise, the 8-10 percent "undecideds" living in rural and outer suburban Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and possibly a few other swing states. Both candidates will try to sway this tiny but crucial part of the electorate, urging a comparison of differences and a variety of promises including on the issue of "values." Assuming the economy stays in the 3-4 percent range, the race could come down to the following: If during October problems in Iraq dominate the news (and John Kerry commits no serious blunder during the presidential debates), George W. Bush could be a goner. If instead the global terrorist threat is screaming from the headlines throughout October (and George Bush appears presidential during the debates), John Kerry loses, again probably by a larger margin than expected.

While the world fixates on the likely winner, the greater concern is whether, post-November, the next President faces a capital essentially ungovernable. A Bush victory would leave 35-45 percent of the electorate with a deep and bitter sense of betrayal. Would outbreaks of civil disobedience be inconceivable? Probably not. If the Massachusetts Senator wins, things could be worse. So far Kerry has been the "not George Bush" candidate. No one gushes over a Kerry vision or a Kerry leadership style. Or as Gail Collins, the editor of the New York Times editorial page, put it: Kerry would be merely a "non-loser ... dragged across the finish line ahead of the other guy."

A Kerry victory would...