Ambassador's Corner

WEEKLY MESSAGE FROM AMBASSADOR JOHN BRUTON

September 17, 2008

The US Presidential Election – a personal perspective

The striking thing about this election is that it has engaged the imagination of the whole world. It has also prompted unprecedented numbers of Americans to become directly involved, many of them initially through the internet. The campaigns show that the internet may well prove to be the means for reviving political parties, as organizers of public opinion, all over the world.

As to the US Presidential Election campaign itself, four phenomena have struck me forcibly as distinguishing US elections from elections in smaller European states, like the one I know best.

• The extent to which the Electoral college system means that winning a few extra votes in some “swing” states is far more important than winning more votes in other states where one party or the other already has a comfortable majority. Under the electoral college system, all the electoral votes of a state usually go to the candidate who got the most votes no matter how close the margin. There are only two exceptions to this (Maine and Nebraska). As a result, there is relatively little campaigning in states like New York or Texas because those states are already comfortably in one camp or the other.

• The emphasis by both parties on “energy independence” as a key policy goal for the United States. This is a goal to which only a country as big as the United States could ever aspire. Other countries are inevitably energy dependent – either as buyers of energy or as sellers depending on energy as a main income source.

• The extent to which both campaigns are critical of “Washington,” and all that goes on there, which I take to be an expression of dissatisfaction with the day-to-day operations of the US Federal System of Government.

• The emphasis on the qualities of a nominee to act as Commander-in-Chief of US military forces. Perhaps understandably this consideration plays a lesser rôle in elections in European countries, whose militaries are less significant.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College system has been in use in the United States to elect the President since 1789. The electoral college was established in an era before full universal adult suffrage had developed. It was created to reflect a popular election element but to keep the selection of the President in the hands of political elites in the states. The original electors were sent to Washington, having been hand-picked by the governors of each state.

Today the Electoral College, which requires the winning candidate to have at least 270 electoral votes, means there is not really a single national Presidential election in the United States per se, but the cumulative total of 50 individual state elections for a national post.

An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal of 11 September 2008 summarizes the political impact of this system quite well.

Using polls taken in the key swing states, it identified the states that President Bush won last time which Senator Obama might win this time – Iowa (7 electors), New Mexico (5 electors), Colorado (9 electors), Virginia (13 electors), Nevada (5 electors), Florida (27 electors) and Ohio (20 electors) and also states won by John Kerry last time where Senator John McCain might have a chance to win this time – Michigan (17 electors), Pennsylvania (21 electors), Minnesota (10 electors), Wisconsin (10 electors) and New Hampshire (4 electors).

This explains why so much attention is being paid to only these 12 of the 50 states, and why the candidates will spend most of their time in these states.

Energy Independence

Energy independence is a remarkably strong theme in the campaign. The United States has immense coal reserves and considerable natural gas resources, but the technological, environmental and financial costs of bringing these on-stream will be substantial. Capital now used for other purposes would have to be diverted to do so.

Oil imports from the Middle East are only 10% of all oil consumed here, whereas 25% comes from sources of supply in the Americas.

Advances in battery technology may allow motor transport to become much less dependent on fossil fuel than today, but more dependent on electricity. But this could involve much heavier use of coal, and that could involve much bigger of emissions of CO2 than using oil. Preventing that CO2 escaping into the atmosphere, by using carbon sequestration, is a technology which is not yet commercially viable and is very expensive.

Senator McCain has also advanced the development of more nuclear power facilities in the US, citing several European countries as examples.

Criticism of “Washington”

Both sides of the political divide agree that change or reform needs to be brought to “Washington.” The US Federal Government is a vast apparatus and implementing changes through the maze of agencies in the Administration and getting agreement from both Houses of Congress is a huge challenge for an incoming President. Those who want to stop change have many more opportunities in the US system than they have in the systems of Government in most European States where party discipline in Government majorities can deliver change more easily. This is not an accident. The framers of the United States Constitution created this situation deliberately. They did not want any branch of Government to be too strong and built in many safeguards to allow minorities to delay things.

The founders did not favour political parties at all, although parties are now seen in most countries as important ways of organizing public opinion and putting change through.

I feel that sometimes the criticism of “Washington” is actually a criticism of the system devised by the framers of the Constitution and adapted over the last 220 years. The built-in safeguards that can delay change are particularly potent in the Senate, where a minority of 41 Senators out of 100 can thwart the will of a majority of 59 through the use of a threat of a filibuster to prevent a vote on legislation. It takes 60 votes to defeat a filibuster.

Just as in Europe it is increasingly difficult to amend the Treaties of the European Union, changing the constitution of the United States is very difficult too. So “change” on both sides of the Atlantic often requires the mobilization of political consensus on a grand scale – never an easy task.

The Rôle of Commander-in-Chief

The United States does have the largest military in the World. The US military budget is just 4% of US GDP, but it adds up to almost half of all military expenditure in the world and is a half of all discretionary (non-entitlement) Federal spending. So it is understandable that there is an emphasis on the rôle of the President as Commander-in-Chief in the election campaign.

Many would argue that, since 1940, the powers of the President in security matters have gradually increased, as the United States has taken on ever greater responsibilities in maintaining order in the world.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 also heightened the perceived importance of the Commander-in-Chief rôle, making it even more crucial that a President can quickly marshal the best possible advice on security issues from all branches of a far-flung and complex system of American Government. Improving this system is a high priority for both candidates and a matter of significance for the world at large.

A visit to Brussels – a discussion about the Lisbon Treaty

Last week I visited Brussels briefly to meet with the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and the Commissioners Siim Kallas and Neelie Kroes.

I also met with the Centre for European Policy Studies to exchange views with members on the Lisbon Treaty and the consequences of a failure to ratify it in Ireland.

In any attempt to sell the Lisbon Treaty to those who have yet to be convinced of its merits, I believe the emphasis should be placed on the benefits the Treaty can give to citizens in their daily lives. The Treaty can benefit people directly by its provisions:

• Allowing more efficient action to combat crimes with a cross-border ingredient. Most crimes nowadays have a cross-border ingredient;

• Creating more powers to deal with cross-border epidemics or health threats. An avian flu epidemic would require very rapid coordination among European governments.

• Giving the EU more powers to deal with energy problems – the price and supply of energy is of vital concern to every European nowadays.

Under international law, all Member States must ratify any new EU Treaties. There is no proposal to change this. Some Treaty amendments, like those to admit new Member States, have until now been ratified in all EU Member States without recourse to a referendum.

I believe in the parliamentary system of Government and I believe referenda should not be used for routine matters. They should only be used for really big changes. If a country is to have referenda on EU Treaties, then the conditions in which it might decide to do so should, in fairness, be known in advance to all the other EU Member States with which it is negotiating, before the negotiation even begins.

In Ireland’s case, referenda on EU Treaties have taken place on the basis of an interpretation of the Constitution by a majority of the Irish Supreme Court, in a particular case.

Perhaps the time has now come for this issue to be clarified by legislation in Ireland, rather than just in a court judgement.

Such legislation on referenda on EU Treaties could be quite explicit and could make it much easier for all concerned, including other EU Member States, to understand in advance the parameters in which they will negotiate future Treaties. Under the Irish Constitution, such legislation could be tested for its compliance with the Constitution before coming into effect, thereby minimizing uncertainty.

Please send me your comments about this or any of my weekly messages or other EU matters. I look forward to hearing from you!