LibriumArcana.Games

Witnessing all that glorious democratic argy-bargy across the water presents the British media with something of a problem. It has been hugely entertaining listening to jaundiced BBC commentators trying to decide whether American politics is quaintly naïve or stirringly robust. I followed most of the Iowa primary and its spectacularly surprising outcome on the American television networks through the miracle of digital technology.

Mike Huckabee in New Hampshire
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on the campaign trail in New Hampshire

The sense of joyous excitement, whatever the political preferences of the analysts, was palpable. Then occasionally I would switch back to the British coverage to see how events were being refracted through the home perspective. It was like watching a cloud passing in front of the sun. Perhaps it was the BBC's embarrassment that Hillary Clinton - whom it had elected to the presidency months ago - had gone down in flames. You could almost hear the gears grinding as expectations and prejudices were confounded: US contemplating first black president; we thought a Clinton was as liberal as it could get; what on earth do we make of this?

But, more than any specific political point-scoring, it was the change of tone that was so startling: from the infectious optimism of the American reports to the world-weary cynicism of the British ones (this Obama thing can't possibly be as good as it sounds, and who is this yokel Huckabee?). What was most striking was the contrast between the unembarrassed respect in the US for the democratic process and thus for those who were participating in it, to the vague contempt in Britain for the whole demeaning circus.

I tuned into the Today programme the morning after Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee had staged the most spectacular upsets in recent American history, and heard the languid voice of James Naughtie claiming to someone on the Huckabee team (who must be an evangelical Christian and therefore a moron, right?) that his man's success represented some sort of vote for ideological faith rather than competence. Huckabee's man, perhaps unused to the subtlety of the BBC's brand of condescension, was utterly lacking in defensiveness. He replied with the common-sense point that the two were not mutually exclusive.

And on it went: veering between awe-struck envy of the joyous optimism and enthusiasm with which Americans plunge into their multi-stage electoral jamboree, and patronising chuckles at the vulgarity of it all.
advertisement

For all that, I cannot remember quite so much detailed interest being shown in Britain before in the primary system. For some reason, what has been seen in previous elections as an arcane detail of the elaborate, drawn-out American election procedure has attracted enormous attention this time.

Perhaps this is a sign of a new openness in Britain: a recognition that there may be something seriously wrong with the way we conduct our parliamentary election process which seems to be alienating voters and leaving huge swaths of the population feeling disenfranchised.

A group of young Conservative MPs called Direct Democracy is campaigning for open primaries, and their party is starting to listen. The Tories selected three candidates for the 2005 elections through open primaries, with gratifying results: Reading East, not even in their top 100 targets, is now a Conservative seat, thanks partly to local media interest aroused by the selection process. This time, dozens more Tory candidates have been selected by local people, not just party members.

But somehow I cannot see that kind of grassroots coming-to-a-diner-near-you brand of American political participation making real inroads here. Those memorable images of ordinary people gathering in libraries and school halls, even living rooms, to debate and discuss the merits of candidates with their fellow citizens just do not seem to translate to a British context: would enough people, who were not axe-grinders or special interest lobbyists, be prepared to take the project seriously to make it meaningful? If not, why not?

US presidential election 2008

What lies behind the supercilious scepticism of the BBC to genuine popular democracy may be inherent in the British attitude to politics. Perhaps it goes back to the English Civil War and the notion that parliamentary activism - the whole tawdry business of putting oneself up for office - is a common, rather downmarket thing to do. The lofty disdain the media show for politicians is simply a form of aristocratic contempt for an activity that has always been, in some vague way, below the salt. Where in the US the democratic process is heroic, in Britain it is squalid.

But maybe I am allowing the fleeting excitement of the moment, and the splendid theatre of this very surprising week, to carry me into fanciful territory. If so, I may as well continue along this harebrained path and do what nobody but a giddy fool would be prepared to risk at this juncture. I will make some predictions about the presidential race. First, a relatively safe one: Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee. His party will not be able to bring itself to turn down the possibility of choosing the first black presidential candidate, when he is so clearly able and charismatic. To reject him would seem to be cowardly and reactionary. (One observation I have not heard anyone make is that Hillary has lost a major Clinton advantage: her husband was far and away the most popular candidate with black voters in the North and the South. Now those voters have one of their own to support so they do not need Bill-by-other-means.) Obama will then choose a considerably older, more seasoned vice-presidential running mate (but not Hillary) in an attempt to counter his lack of experience.

John McCain will win the Republican nomination and he will choose a social conservative (but not Huckabee) as his running mate. There will be a civilised and edifying contest between Obama and McCain - both exceptionally articulate men - which will itself be politically valuable: helping to restore America's confidence at home and its image in the world, as well as making life exceedingly difficult for the European Left for whom anti-Americanism is the last hurrah. But for all the inspirational value of his candidacy, Obama will not win the presidency: America will have been made to feel sufficiently good about itself simply by his nomination and the way it responds to him as a candidate not to feel the need to put him in the White House.

The popular, if not the electoral college, vote will be close but America will decide that in such dangerous times, it must choose the wise older leader, the war hero, the statesman who talks about foreign policy and national security with real authority.

Or maybe what Britain needs is just someone like Obama?