By David Green

Super Tuesday is now one for the history books and so, for all intents and purposes, is the Democratic Party nomination process. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, John Kerry will be the party’s nominee and everybody knows it, including George W. Bush, whose campaign has already unleashed an expected torrent of advertising seeking to bolster Bush’s falling popularity while simultaneously ‘defining’ Kerry to the American public in unflattering terms.

What happens between here and November is difficult to predict. There are some seemingly analogous precedents on which to draw, particularly the elections of 1932, 1992 and 2000. But, of course, the political landscape has changed dramatically in just the last three years, and in any case the 2004 cycle has already demonstrated its power to surprise, first with the out-of-left-field rise of Howard Dean, and then again with his precipitous decline.

Nevertheless, two things seem clear. First, this will be the most significant presidential election in perhaps 70 years. Not since Americans had to choose in the 1932 election between Herbert Hoover’s status quo offering and Franklin Roosevelt’s radically different vision for American government has so much been at stake.

Indeed, in many ways the very same issues remain on the table in 2004. Ultra-conservatives have never accepted the changes wrought by FDR and his successors (including more moderate Republicans like Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush The Elder) and, looked at systematically, much of W’s agenda should be seen as simply an attempt to roll back decades of progressive change. This nineteenth century version of American society comes complete with the unraveling of social safety-net programs like Social Security and Medicare, staggering inequalities in wealth, deregulation of industry’s responsibilities to workers and the environment, re-regulation of personal and social choices, and, internationally, the enfeebling of institutions for collective governance and cooperation.

The upshot is that, whatever else can be said, one thing is certain: Americans who in the past might legitimately have lamented a lack of choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum can make no such complaint in 2004. For the first time in a long time, the choices before voters represent starkly divergent visions for the future of America and the world.

This alone would be enough to guarantee that a second prediction will also come true, that this will be among the bloodiest of presidential contests. But there are plenty of additional reasons to anticipate this outcome. To start, Bush is one of the most polarizing presidents in modern American history. He has generated adoration among his admirers and loathing among an equally-sized group of detractors. America is divided politically, culturally and economically, and Bush represents much of what is right or wrong with the country, depending on one’s politics. Democratic (and, increasingly, other) voters have repeatedly exhibited in this election season their laser-like focus on removing him from office, and organizations like MoveOn.org and even billionaires like George Soros have committed vast resources toward that end. Conservatives, meanwhile, are equally adamant about retaining their champion.

But there are other reasons as well to watch for a bruising eight months ahead. Frankly, the leader who describes himself as “a uniter, not a divider” owns a very different electoral record. As a manager of his father’s 1988 campaign, he shares blame for the racially divisive Willie Horton ad. In 2000, religion and race were both used in his name to smear fellow Republican John McCain. And in 2002 his Republican Party ran perhaps the ugliest of political ads ever, questioning the security credentials of Vietnam vet and triple-amputee Max Cleland because of his vote against the Homeland Security Act, an initiative which Bush himself had originally opposed until he loaded up the bill with union busting language. Now, in 2004, it looks like gays are to be the out group a la mode for the Bush attack team. In short, these guys play dirty.

We’ve seen this before, but what we haven’t seen in a very long time is a Democratic Party, which could give as good as it gets. It is unclear whether John Kerry will be a Michael Dukakis (as he began the primary season) or a Harry Truman (as he ended it, thanks to Howard Dean’s pioneering progressive challenge), but the latter is probably the better bet. Kerry, who has shown great courage in war but relatively less on political battlefields, at least knows what to expect from Bush, as well as how not to win thanks to Dukakis. If he puts up his dukes to match Bush’s, this will be a bloody affair indeed.

All of these factors, plus the very closeness of the electorate, create the perfect recipe for a pitched and brutal battle leading up to Nov. 2, and probably long after as well. All told, this is likely to be remembered as one of the most significant presidential elections in American history.

David Green is a professor of political science.