These columns have devoted a lot of inches over the past year to outlining the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush. There are differences, and they are significant. We have urged a vote for President Bush because he is a more steadfast, principled leader in the war against Islamic extremist terrorism and for expanding freedom abroad, and because he is more credible on the key domestic issues of tort reform, marginal tax reduction, and Social Security privatization.

But as voters go to the polls today, it’s worth stepping back and reflecting that fundamentally, no matter who wins in today’s election, there has been a victory for conservative ideas. Mr. Bush has embraced the idea of spreading freedom around the world, calling it “God’s gift.” At home, he has cut taxes and promised in a second term to move to simplify the tax code itself.

But less well noticed – or acknowledged by many Bush supporters – is the extent to which Senator Kerry has also embraced conservative ideas in this election. He has touted his support for welfare reform, and he went hunting near the close of the campaign. He has promised a tax cut for “98% of America” and “a tax cut for all people earning less than the $200,000” and “to lower corporate tax rates in America for all corporations,5%.” He claims to support tort reform.

On some foreign policy and national security issues, Mr. Kerry has even been campaigning to the right of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry says he wants to increase the size of the American military by adding 40,000 new troops. He says he wants to be tougher on some Muslim countries than Mr. Bush has been. “This administration delayed pressuring the Saudis,” Mr. Kerry said on October 20. “I will insist that the Saudis crack down on charities that funnel funds to terrorists… and on anti-American and anti-Israel hate speech.” On Iraq, Mr. Kerry is weaker than Bush, but he acknowledges that America can’t cut and run. “We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq,” Mr. Kerry said in the first presidential debate with Mr. Bush.

The “peace” candidates in this campaign season – the former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean; the consumer advocate, Ralph Nader; and the Libertarian, Michael Badnarik – have, in the end, found themselves out of the mainstream and lacking support from the electorate.

We find Mr. Kerry a flawed messenger for sensible views because of his advocacy of retreat in the last desperate war, Vietnam, and because of his record as Michael Dukakis’s lieutenant governor and as senator. As senator, he repeatedly voted to raise taxes, was out of the fight for tort reform, stood against the first Gulf War, and opposed defense spending. The reliance on France, Germany, and the United Nations that he touts as his foreign policy would retard American progress in the war against the terrorists. And he is campaigning to raise taxes on small businesses and on the most productive Americans. It is for these reasons, and because Mr. Bush’s support for freedom around the world, that we prefer Mr. Bush and that we expect him to prevail with the voters today.

But should Mr. Kerry prevail, many of us who believe in conservative principles will reject an interpretation of the vote as a capitulation of the American people to the terrorists, as happened in Spain, or as a rejection of the Bush domestic agenda. For all the talk of a bitterly divided electorate, this campaign has seen the leaders of both major political parties voice support for tax cuts, tort reform, gun rights, tough military action against terrorists, and staying in Iraq until it is a success. That a Democrat was forced to campaign on this ground will represent a victory, no matter which candidate wins.