But thinking about politics is frequently like breathing for me. And world events keep happening. However, I have not really been following the political very closely. Curiously, this has helped me actually think a little about what has been happening over the last couple of years.

I think my thought process started with this post. Specifically, this point.

"Now, I can imagine that there have been times of similar animosity. The American Civil War is an example of a major diversion in ideology that could not be reconciled. While I am not trying to say that this is analagous, I am going to say that no matter what happens in November with the Presidential election, there is a significant portion (30%) who is going to find the result very hard to take. And heaven help us if it is like 2000, with a heavily disputed result."

As I stated in that post, I was born and raised in South Africa. The United States is my adopted home. I am American by choice, and intensely patriotic, because of that choice. My patriotism, however, does not blind me to America's faults.

Most things in life are two edged swords, and this is especially true in politics. One of the most difficult things for any nation to accomplish is to establish a process of governance that is fair, democratic, and accepted by the vast majority of people in the country. I should define political process as meaning the methodology by which the people go about selecting their representatives and leaders, even if this is not democratic. The United States has done very well in this regard, perhaps too well. South Africa gave me a perspective on political process that is quite different from almost everyone I know who is an American native, born and breed here. Americans take the robustness of their political process for granted. People from countries that have seen blood spilled regularly in the political process take no process lightly.

In some ways this inherent belief in the unassailability of the American democratic system is the reason for that political process's longevity, but frequently that belief causes me concern for the process's continuation. Specifically, this presidential race may be one that damages the process badly. Here is the reasoning for my supposition.

There are partisans on both sides of the aisle. I do not claim to be non-partisan. However, I always try to ensure that my partisanship never damages the process. If my side of the aisle loses a Presidential race or control of the legislature, the process dictates that I must accept that loss with grace. I must be willing to regroup and try to win in the next round of political contest. I must be willing to accept that this was what the process brought, and be willing to change that result within the process the next time it occurs.

However, what if you believed that either the process was fundamentally unfair, or that the person who won had the ability to destroy the process? What if defeating the opposing party was more important then preserving the process? What if the process brought forth such a bad choice, that it convinced you that the process must be radically reformed in order to ensure that such a choice does not happen again? These are some of things that we may be facing in the next election.

If GWB loses this election, there is going to be a belief on the Conservative side of the aisle that the defeat was actively aided and abetted by a biased media who was willing to do whatever it took to unseat President Bush, including lie about the war in Iraq, and hide unsightly facts about Kerry. That is going to be very hard to take for these Conservatives. The media is inextricably part of the American political process. Thus, a large group will become very embittered by the system, and have difficulty accepting the result. I understand that the blogosphere, and internet are a new source of information, but I am not at all sure they are widely enough desseminated to overcome the mainstream media.

If GWB wins, however, there is a large group of people that have somehow managed to convince themselves that Bush = Hitler. All you have to do is talk to them to realize that they believe that Bush will simply destroy us in another 4 years. And if you truly believe that Bush = Hitler, you can quite easily be convinced that any action needed to unseat him is reasonable, including subverting the process for that purpose.

Therefore, we have a fairly significant group of people that are going to be deeply dissatisfied with the result whatever it is, and even more troubling, deeply dissatisfied with the process.

This is troublesome to me, because I do not share most people's belief in the inherent robustness of the American system. A political system robustness is measured by the size of the majority that buys into it. If a significant number begin to seriously opt out of the system, robustness suffers, and bad things can follow. At its most basic level democratic politics is only ideological warfare with rules that everyone agrees to abide by. The only difference, when you get right down to it, is that if our guy loses, we don't go shoot our opponents in order to get a rematch. But what if the other guy was Hitler? I mean, what if you really believed that?

So we will see. The American system is inherently robust. but;

"It is ordained in the eternal consitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions form their fetters" Edmund Burke.

*Update*

Dean Esmay makes an excellent point, one I should have addressed in the body of my post.

"Have a heart, my patriotic friend. This Republic has withstood times of strife greater than these. Rioting and looting in the streets and terrorist bombings by the dozen in the late '60s and early '70s. Outright civil war in the 1860s. We've withstood extremists like Ted Kaczinski, Terry Nichols, Tim McVeigh, and more."

And the point is valid and relevant, however, it is not determinative. I would not be so concerned if I saw that it was merely the wingnuts doing the talking. Michael Moore and David Duke.

Instead, I see that a Federal Circuit Judge has compared Bush to Mussolini and Hitler.

And that is only in the last week. There are a ton more examples that I could think of. When you have a Circuit Appellate court judge like Calabresi willing to make such a statement, what does that say for the message?

Is it out on the fringe? Not so much anymore. And that is problematic.

blaster just wanted to pass this along, and since he is not near a computer, I said I would do it for him.

"The problem with the 9/11 commission talk and those who say that the administration stated, or strongly implied, that Hussein was behind 9/11 by collaborating with AQ, are saying that the war was sold on the basis of being a retaliatory strike.

This is patently ridiculous, given the arguments about preemption and imminent threat and all that we've had over the past 2 years."

I have more thoughts about the split of the American electorate, and what consequences it might have on the process. They have sort of been rattling around my head while I have been studying the requisite 12 hours a day *yech*

I am slowly building a post, and will have it out in a few days.