America needs a truly great president to heal its deep divisions

At a time when a European-American alliance is much needed, few people in Western Europe understand US politics. Fewer still feel sympathy with it. This should not surprise us. The same is true in the States.

When the world is under strain, and resilient governments are needed, this is not a good moment for democracy. Apart from the US, where a version of controlled democracy came into being as an Enlightenment project, that method of government evolved out of earlier ruling structures. We British were fortunate. Whether because of our moral superiority or merely due to the English Channel, our evolution was comparatively peaceful.

America was different. The creation of its institutions almost resembled a Hobbesian social contract. But in all European nations, democracy benefited from the force majeure derived from previous forms of government. People assumed that they would be compelled to obey the laws and that governments could coerce their persons and seize their property. So democracy was a means of endowing governments with legitimacy and making state force palatable. If you have the right to vote, then even if your party loses an election, you can always hope for better luck next time.

The risk arises when the defeated parties do not merely shrug their shoulders and start organising for a better future outcome – but actually move into internal exile. At that stage, political conflicts may rapidly burst their bounds, moving from the legislature to the streets. That is now a danger in the United States. In some states where abortion will still be permitted, the relevant clinics need police protection. So do the Supreme Court Justices who voted against Roe v Wade. If President Trump can be accused of incitement in encouraging the protestors who descended on Capitol Hill, is President Biden far behind him in his denunciations of the Justices with whom he disagrees?

The President clearly believes that a fight with the Supreme Court is his only hope in the mid-term elections. That takes us into the territory of fundamental constitutional conflict. Biden will announce his intention of packing the Supreme Court. Even so, and although that would be an intense provocation to his opponents, it might not reach boiling-point, because he may be miscalculating. There is talk of his campaigning. But the poor old boy is too gaga to campaign effectively, while his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, is possibly the most unpopular senior office-holder in American history. All that said, and whatever the outcome, the US is more divided than it has been since the end of Reconstruction. E pluribus unum: what hope of that?

America needs a unifying President: Ronald Reagan, George Bush senior – and perhaps we could have added Colin Powell. Instead, Donald Trump is still with us. It may be that someone will emerge and brush him aside. Lincoln and Truman were great Presidents, although nothing in their background suggested such an outcome. To some extent, the same was true of President Reagan. I spent much of that great year, 1980, in the States, and learned a lot. One such lesson was: never trust Lefties’ assessments of Conservative politicians. A lot of plausible Washington Lefties were ready to write off Reagan. He larned them.

So we can hope that in its hour of need, the great Republic will find a great President. But there is no Cincinnatus on the horizon.

There is another reason for gloom: the decline of Congress as a force for moderation and a means of good government. A generation ago, there was a lot of bipartisanship on the Hill. This did not only manifest itself on the floor of the Houses. Senators and Congressmen socialised. They went to each other’s homes and parties. They met in bars, restaurants and clubs. This encouraged an implicit understanding that deals had to be done. No-one would get everything that they wanted. No perfection was available, on the Left or the Right. This had one bad aspect: pork-barrel politics. If there was a project in your state that needed Federal funding, while Joe next door had something similar, it was surprising how quickly Republicans and Democrats could forget their differences. But allowing for that, mutual respect between the parties would make for better government, on the whole.

There is a vulgar Marxist explanation for the breakdown of harmony: cash. In 2006, Congressmen were paid $174,000 a year. They still are. There are no personal allowances and second jobs are banned. This tends to mean that Congressmen are either rich, so that the salary does not matter, or that they are social activists earning more than they could elsewhere. But the latter economise by spending the minimum time in Washington and sleeping in their offices. Although It is unlikely that such characters, almost all Democrats, would naturally become friendly with Republicans, any slim chance is crushed. At the same time, the intense media scrutiny plus the need to spend massive amounts of time fund-raising, added to the pressure on personal finances and family life – all discourage decent and public-spirited members of the professional classes from thinking of running for Congress.

I suspect that in five years’ time, the abortion issue will have calmed down. The matter will have gone back to individual States, as it should. But the problems on the Hill will not have gone away. That said, Donald Trump is not immortal.

To add another “that said”, anyone in the UK tempted to gloat over America’s misfortunes should look to the beam in our own eye. The greased piglet is still eluding his captors. The abattoir awaits – but when? No country which tolerates Boris Johnson as its leader could claim that another advanced democracy is mired in greater moral chaos.