Connect: Four years ago, I wrote in this newspaper: "A victory for Bush's regressive notion of a 19th century America means that the US has, once again, turned inward. It also confirms European disapproval of the country's swaggering, gun-toting mentality. America as a notion and America as a nation have never been concepts that are easy to reconcile - either domestically or in world terms."
Since then we've had the most unilateral US president in memory and the most severe breakdown in relations between Europe and the US. Recall too that by September 10th, 2001, George Bush's poll ratings had slumped to 50 per cent, the lowest of any president at that early point in his tenure. The following day they began to soar but, with time, have dipped inexorably.
We've had September 11th, 2001; Afghanistan and the Taliban; Iraq and Saddam Hussein; about 30,000 people killed (half in Iraq, half in Afghanistan) and multiples of that figure maimed; torture in Abu Ghraib; beheadings of hostages on the Internet; British prime minister Tony Blair repeatedly humiliated; Bush declaring "mission accomplished" and Iraq descending into a bloody nightmare.
On it goes. As a result, next Tuesday's US presidential election is guaranteed to be a blockbuster. When George Bush and Al Gore clashed in 2000, ratings for the fictionalised West Wing TV series (set in the White House) trounced those of the real race for the presidency. America then remained a romanticised notion within a pragmatic nation. To Bush and his supporters, it still does.
At its core, the 2004 US presidential election is about America's place in the world. George Bush promises more unilateralism; John Kerry pledges to rebuild links with the wider world. Ralph Nader is correct when he refers to the Republicans and Democrats as a "two-party electoral dictatorship" but pragmatism has its place too. Nader, having made his point, might have withdrawn.
He hasn't, and Bush voters are pleased. They see their man as standing up for them. Yet even they must acknowledge that the price includes lies; a pointless "war"; lost jobs; tax cuts for the mega-wealthy; high petrol, oil and food prices; insecure social security; sick medical programmes; faith-based "patriotism" and a climate of fear fanned by regular reports of imminent attacks. Even so, they will vote for Bush because he sells them a notional America - a self-sufficient, 19th century country of "freedom". It's strange how a combination of blue-chip corporations and redneck citizens serves US Republicans. In a country where a majority of citizens describe themselves as "middle-class", the middle is surprisingly easily squeezed.
Still, it appears to be an open race. A Kerry win could suffer at home from being seen as a victory for liberalism. Abroad, it almost certainly would be criticised as insufficiently liberal. In that sense, Nader's characterisation of the "two-party electoral dictatorship" rings true: there are fewer differences between Bush and Kerry than might reasonably be expected.
Nonetheless, there are crucial differences, especially from the internal perspective. If Bush wins he will continue to bully less powerful countries in order to copper-fasten America's dominant place in the world. Kerry too will naturally want the US to remain the wealthiest, most economically and militarily powerful country on the planet. We can, however, expect him to bully far less.
Consider it this way: even after Kerry had won the three television "debates", Bush's response was a new TV ad featuring wolves about to leap through the screen. That, like all the reports of imminent attacks, was designed to play on the fears of ordinary Americans traumatised by the sight of planes flying into New York City's World Trade Centre.
That is bullying. It can (and, in the event of a Bush victory, will) be characterised as astute political propaganda on behalf of a "war president". But it too extracts an unacceptable price from ordinary Americans. Designed to frighten people, it does. Four more years of that sort of propaganda and the "home of the brave" will inevitably become the "home of the frightened".
Indeed, the fear spread by the Bush cabal ripples out beyond the US and the strife-torn states of the Middle East. In Ireland, for instance, politicians won't admit it but many of them supported US troops using Shannon airport because they were afraid to oppose it. Some, of course, saw it as neighbourly - the kind of thing the "white world" should do. But others were simply fearful.
The starkness of "you're either with us or against us" left no room for manoeuvre. Great democracy that - what "freedom"! The effect of this absurd dictum silenced not only people with reservations but most of the American media too. Belatedly, the US media has found its voice again and has attempted to do its proper democratic job of holding power accountable to the people.
So, Tuesday's election will be not only about America's place in the world but between faith and reason, fear and hope, bullying and compromise, the 19th century notion and the 21st century nation. This week the Boston Red Sox won baseball's "World Series", thus breaking the 86-year "Curse of the Babe". Another Massachusetts win on Tuesday would be welcome. We'll see.