Writing before it occurs, what can I say about yesterday’s election? In this arena, modesty and circumspection come naturally. Yet, I am confident of a few important features of our emerging political economy. Here’s the history from which I write.

Ramona and I spent the Wednesday after the 2000 election in the Lima, Peru airport. We listened to CNN cover the U.S. election in Spanish. I was disoriented and mightily confused by the ever-changing reports. Bush won. No, Gore won. Then Bush, again Gore. After 36 days the 2000 election was finally decided and most Americans accepted the results. We wanted to unite behind a president and move on.

Never again, I prayed. That outcome eroded civility and confidence in our political system.

This year’s was a mean and nasty election with most folks voting for the lesser of evils. And I fear it will be contested or even, God help us, a tie. I believe that whoever wins the presidency will ultimately suffer.

This time, if contested, fewer voters will accept the outcome if their side loses. And I expect acrimony in Congress to increase. Another terrorist attack would probably again unite Americans but would not overcome the strident, vitriolic, permanent campaign and the rigid ideologues in Congress.

As I write this, I offer suggestions for thinking about national politics while maintaining good cheer and civility. First, ratchet down your expectations of politicians’ behavior. They didn’t get there by accident.

A person is setting himself up for disappointment if he assumes the major parties, D or R, have a philosophical gyroscope. Aside from the two dozen or so fringe organizations such as the Prohibitionist Party (yes, it still exists), consider parties as opportunistic, predatory outfits that seek to maximize control over resources and allocate wealth. This is the way the political world works. It’s naïve to expect otherwise.

President Bush and the congressional Republicans conclusively demonstrated that traditional Republican claims of fiscal prudence and small domestic government are readily, indeed joyfully jettisoned to advance special interests. Political expediency trumps principled actions.

This pandering to key constituents, of course, holds equally for Democrats. For example, while claiming to represent minorities and the poor, Democratic lawmakers act as if beholden to teachers’ unions. Pro-choice? Surely not for the education of our most disadvantaged urban children. The Democrats are on the wrong side of this great civil rights battle. I don’t expect them to put kids’ welfare and future well-being above their own -- until children start paying union dues.

All monopolists fear competition and most seek governmental protection. That’s why interests invest so heavily in congressional elections, few of which are competitive.

Congressional incumbents work with political professionals to design and distort districts to insulate themselves from competition. All seek safe seats. Nearly all get them. For example, there was only one competitive House race out of the 53 seats in California.

Just two of New York’s 29 seats and one of Florida’s 25 were considered competitive in ’04. Of the 435 seats in the House only about 30 were races. Several polls predicted that aside from Texas, where Democratic incumbents were threatened by redistricting, every incumbent was expected to win.

Rob Richie, of the Center for Voting and Democracy, said: “‘Coronations’ is a good word when talking about congressional contests…. We’re getting back to the divine right of kings.”

The most important strategy is computer-aided redrawing of congressional districts. New political maps are drawn to foster safe seats. This has become a fine science of geography, demography, and computer graphics.

The results are clear. A decade ago, 91 percent of House members battling for reelection won. Then, in 1996, 95 percent returned to the House. In ’02 the figure was above 98 percent and victories huge. The average winning candidate returned to DC with 70 percent of the vote.

Even with all these flaws, ours is the world’s most successful large-scale social experiment. Historically, we have not taken good care of our weakest. But ultimately, we recognize ethical and practical violations. We repent and attempt reform.

We suffer the burdens of historical flaws. Some are intractable, but we try. For this I am grateful. Yes, I’m proud to be an American. I trust, even on November 3rd.