So the curtain goes up on 2004 and, being human, we long to know what will happen in the new year.
The only dependable prediction is that it will surprise us. From the standpoint of the present, the future always looks like a featureless projection of the past – the one thing that it never is. The most cautious political calculations will turn out to be wildly off base. Events that seem, in prospect, unlikely to occur will occur when least expected. No wonder the Democrats refuse to give up hope.
And yet, we must anticipate the future as best we can. There is simply no other way to proceed. So let's peer into the murk, and see what we can descry.
To take the biggest and most obvious fact first: President Bush has committed the United States to a major geopolitical thrust in the Middle East. He has occupied Iraq, and will either transform it into a reasonably viable democratic and entrepreneurial society, lighting the road ahead for the whole region and dooming the fanatical Muslim jihadists to irrelevance, or fail utterly and watch the American initiative bleed to death in a grim guerilla war that will inspire new onslaughts everywhere.
Given the immense disproportion in power between the United States and the estimated 5,000 guerillas facing it in Iraq, the betting surely has to be that the United States will prevail. But it is by no means certain that 21st-century Americans have the stamina to watch one or two of their brave young soldiers killed every day for the indefinite future, as they well may be. If the resolution of the American people falters, the consequences will be enormous.
Internationally, the initiative would pass to France, Germany and Russia, acting through the United Nations. Domestically, President Bush would be routed politically by the Democrats, regardless of whom they nominate.
And even if these international disasters do not befall us, Bush remains vulnerable to a downturn in the economy, unlikely though that seems at the moment. The American people are famous for holding presidents responsible for economic slumps that occur on "their watch," and they are not likely to spare Bush if the economy looks bleak in November.
But, to repeat, these developments seem, at the moment, unlikely, to say the least. The polls indicate that the voters still have far more confidence in Bush than in the Democrats in matters of security and foreign affairs, and are even reasonably satisfied with his performance on the domestic economic front. The Democratic presidential nomination looks like an invitation to ritual sacrifice – a fact Sen. Hillary Clinton has indirectly confirmed by deferring her own presidential ambitions to 2008. If, next October, the situation in Iraq is clearly improving, and the domestic economy is reasonably robust, Bush will be a hard man indeed to dislodge from the White House.
Meanwhile, there are various other potential events that could affect this picture. For example, it is certainly possible that Osama bin Laden will be captured or killed this year. That would almost certainly redound to Bush's benefit, as the recent capture of Saddam Hussein did.
But what if – say, along about September – al-Qaida manages to pull off another couple of spectacular air hijackings, crashing one plane into the Capitol, knocking its dome slightly askew, and another into the White House, missing Bush but killing scores of aides and high officials? Would the American people blame Bush, and throw him out of office? Or would they re-elect him by a huge majority over Howard Dean, who recently insisted we mustn't launch foreign attacks without the United Nations' "permission"?
In the year ahead, as Thomas Carlyle said on another occasion, "there is futurity enough." Let's just hope we can stand it!