The Continental European instinct, when faced with an attack of evil, is to surrender. This is a sweeping generalization that, like all sweeping generalizations, has its heroic exceptions. But it explains why, for instance, the British were left fighting Nazi Germany virtually singlehandedly in World War II. And it explains why the voters of Spain, faced with last week’s terror bombing in Madrid, turned tail in the war on terrorism, ousted their pro-American prime minister, and installed a more appeasement-minded leader.

Americans, thank goodness, are made of sterner stuff. That, at least, is the message we take away from the first-ever New York Sun poll, in which 1,000 likely voters nationwide were asked, “Would a terrorist attack on America between now and election day make you more likely to vote for George W. Bush or John Kerry?” The results were heartening to those of us who believe that Mr. Bush is the one with a better plan for victory in the war on terror. Of those polled in the survey, conducted for the Sun by McLaughlin & Associates, 38.9% said an attack would make them more likely to vote for Mr. Bush, while 30.3% said an attack would make them more likely to vote for Mr. Kerry.

There’s no doubt something gruesome about even asking this question in a poll, but it is, alas, the world we live in. No Bush supporter is hoping for a terror attack in order to boost the president’s chances for re-election. Still, the results should give pause to any terrorists hoping that a deadly attack on America would lead to the election of a president, Senator Kerry, who would be unlikely to pursue the war on terror as actively as Mr. Bush has.

And the results should give pause to any Democrats who would hope to capitalize on such an attack. We don’t doubt that any attacks would be followed by such an effort, aimed at claiming, for instance, that Mr. Bush has left us vulnerable by not spending enough on homeland security, by failing to exert enough pressure on Prime Minister Sharon, and by attacking Iraq.

Indeed, Democrats are already making such arguments and there hasn’t yet been a new attack. “The Administration withdrew from the playing field in the Middle East,” Senator Clinton complained in a speech last month. “We still have not done enough on our port security; our border security; our infrastructure security,” she complained.

The New York Times editorialists complained in advance of the liberation of Iraq that,”just as the American military’s presence in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war precipitated the growth of Al Qaeda and Sept. 11, the long-term occupation of Iraq will create resentment in the Muslim world that could lead to more, not less, terrorism.”

The results of The New York Sun poll suggest that such arguments won’t get much traction with the majority of the American people, who understand that President Bush has been leading the war on terror about as vigorously as can be expected. Americans understand that the victory is better won on enemy soil than by creating a police state at home. Americans understand that victory doesn’t lie in betraying our democratic ally Israel. And Americans don’t take a blame America first approach to understanding the causes of terrorism. Sure, there are fronts, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, on which we wish Mr. Bush were more vigorous. But the overall effort has been impressive, with regime changes in two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, that were terrorist hotbeds.

If anything — and here we speculate beyond the results of the poll — an attack on America would only strengthen American patriotism and determination to achieve victory in the war against the Islamic terrorist enemy. Which is why we’re proud to be Americans rather than Europeans.