November 2 2004 is still over a year away but American presidential elections are already casting their long shadow on the political scene.
They are influencing George W. Bush’s decisions, the democratic party’s actions (still on the look out for a candidate) and, in some way, also global crises from the Middle East to North Korea, from the Dollar-Euro relationship to the liberalization process of international commerce.

It is the tribute the world is called to pay the democratic process every four years, with results that are not always exciting.
As we will all recollect, Bush jr. won the November 2000 elections by a handful of highly contested votes in a Florida ruled by his brother Jeb. The democratic candidate Al Gore, Clinton’s former deputy, obtained about 300.000 extra votes nationally, but – considering the American election legislation - if George W. achieved an evident success in the “State of the Shining Sun”, nobody would have questioned his right to rule. Instead, for one month America was torn by appeals, counter-appeals, accusations of poll-rigging and counter-accusations of fraudulent misrepresentation, which were solved only by a controversial majority verdict of the Supreme Courts.
Hence when George W. finally settled down in the White House the following January, many Americans considered him a president with less authority and many even an illegitimate president.

Then September 11th came along and a country still in doubt closed ranks behind its leader, who had declared war to death against terrorists. The president’s popularity reached peaks never touched by any of his predecessors and for the next two years Americans supported all his initiatives with few reservations, from hunting down Bin Laden in Afghanistan to war against Saddam, from the most impressive tax reduction in recent American history to a restriction of Arab immigrants’ civil rights.

The clumsiness and lack of preparation, which his more sophisticated electors criticized him, have become irrelevant before the general feeling of having found a leader at last, one who may be a little unpolished, but is able to make hard decisions and to inform the country about them. Last November this favourable trend in public opinion enabled Bush jr. to also win the majority in the two Houses of Parliament, essential towards his election plan and the necessary requirements to request a second mandate.

The first important result of this strong position conquered by George W. is that no Republican will challenge him his appointment in the party, thus saving him expense, time and energy in primary elections. Instead of having to travel throughout the nation seeking approval for months, he can concentrate on work at the White House and, if at all, focus on helping Republicans running for Congress and Senate.
But he can especially direct all the considerable financial resources at his disposal on the real presidential campaign, acquiring right away an important advantage on the democratic candidate. If at the beginning of the count down Bush appears to hold an excellent position that must be reconfirmed by the polls, he cannot ignore that the path to be re-elected is always strewn with snares. His father knows something about that as in 1992 he was beaten after just one mandate by Bill Clinton, who was quite a stranger at the time because, after freeing Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, he did not succeed in re-launching the economy in time.

And once again the latter that is currently in the limbo could become George W’s Achilles’ heel. Clinton, who was lucky enough to preside during the longest expansion phase in the post-war period, handed down to Bush jr. an overheated machine that was starting to miss. The concurrence of the burst of Wall Street’s bubble of speculation (especially of technological shares), the scandals that overwhelmed leading American companies and the Twin Tower attack have definitely made it go haywire. We must however say that things could have turned out much worse.
Thanks to the Federal Reserve’s action, which, working half a point at a time, cut down interest rates to the lowest point ever after World War II, the president’s policy that is decidedly targeted at lightening the fiscal pressure and the subsequent maintenance of a good level of trust between consumers, the real recession lasted only a few months, and growth, though limited and strained, has begun once again.
The marked – and under certain aspects unforeseen – devaluation of the dollar compared to the Euro has increased the cost of imports to Europe and of American travel abroad, but it should re-launch exports and hence stem a deficit in payments that now exceeds 4% of the GDP. However uncertainty continues to reign among analysts, confirmed by the ups and downs in the Stock Exchange, where the bull has put in an appearance again but is still not the ruler of the scene. Mainly investments are scarce, because, recalling the drunkenness of the late ‘90s and despite the low cost of money, companies prefer to avoid too many risks at this stage. The future also presents the threat of a gigantic federal deficit, the result of a right-wing Keynesian policy that could be decisive to re-launch the economy, but also to inflict long-lasting damage to the machine. Aware that the majority of Americans vote with their wallet, George W. must aim at a 2-3% growth in 2004 and manoeuvre in such a manner that the new bubble of speculation that is taking shape, real estate property, does not explode in his hands at the very eve of elections.

The second issue of great relevance in the election campaign concerns Iraq. Two thirds of Americans supported war against Saddam, they celebrated its quick close and were not over disturbed by the failure to capture the dictator nor by the impossibility to trace mass destruction weapons that were the main cause of war. Attacked by the “Liberal” press for having deceived public opinion concerning the danger Saddam represented for America, Bush has so far defended himself successfully saying that the search for forbidden devices is still underway and that the truth will surface at the end. However many are now losing patience. The difficulties of reconstruction, the population’s constant hostility towards allied troupes, the persistent and bloody ambushes against soldiers forced to carry out duties they are not prepared for in impossible climatic conditions, disturb the citizens and reawaken in many the sad memories of Vietnam. People ask themselves how long the “boys” will have to stay in the Middle East, the cost of a protracted occupation and whether the enterprise will really not lead to a new surge of Al Qaeda terrorism, as harbingers of doom are convinced. He is lucky that the White House has yet a year to straighten out the situation and start disengagement procedures, but the unknown factors are many and – if things were to take a turn for the worse – we cannot rule out a revolt of the electorate against a foreign policy that is too risky.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict too can influence the polls. Bush has personally undertaken to solve it partly pressed by his friend Blair and partly to show the moderate Arab world that he has taken its problems to heart. But his actions are remarkably influenced by the mood on the inside front: his staunch supporters, Christian fundamentalists, see in Israel the only outpost of western civilization in enemy country and cannot tolerate it being penalized to satisfy the Muslims. The Jewish lobby, that numbers three million electors and counts on a network of newspapers, televisions and economic powers of great relevance in the very States in which George W. must look for approval, is favourable towards Bush’s policy of the “two States that live alongside in peace and safety”, but only if the guarantees for Israel are extremely rigorous and if the Palestinian terrorist network is first dismantled.
When, in June, Bush publicly deplored the Israeli attempt to remove Dr. Rantissi, the person who was second in importance in the HAMAS and organizer of many suicide attacks, Jewish American organizations reacted with anger and threatened they would withdraw their support to the president to such an extent that the White House hurriedly retraced its steps. We must hence exclude that, in an electoral year, Bush can exercise great pressure on Sharon, even if he were to deviate from a “peaceful course”. Bush is lucky that the democratic party is still reeling after the 2000 and 2002 defeats, did not believe it advisable to oppose war like its left wing and cannot find a leader to replace Clinton (who by law cannot run for the White House) and Gore (who had enough of his unsuccessful attempt three years ago).
American newspapers report about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s many activities, the former first lady who has become the senator of the State of New York. With the excuse of promoting her much celebrated autobiography, she is travelling throughout the nation, establishing contacts with democratic members of parliament and governors and taking over the party’s many organizations.
However observers tend to exclude the possibility that Hillary – though no doubt moved by a desire to run for presidency – will present her candidacy already in 2004, running the risk of being crushed by a popular president who is supported by the leading forces. For the time being, with the assistance of her husband who has still to be forgiven his famous love affairs, she is simply placing the foundations for the 2008 campaign, when Bush jr. will be in turn offside.

However the Democratic Party does not lack would-be presidents: nine have announced their candidacy to date, covering all political positions, from pacifists to warmongers, from Keynesians to the ultra-liberalistic.
Electors of the primary elections, which promise a good battle, will have an extensive choice. However none of the adversaries enjoys much national fame, with the possible exception of Joseph Lieberman, who was Gore’s deputy three years ago, but who has the relevant drawback of being a practicing Jew (no Israeli has yet succeeded in making a bid for the White House and political scientists do not consider it a favourable moment to violate this taboo).

John Kerry, the senator of Massachusetts and a Vietnam hero turned dove and married to a multibillionaire, senator Edwards from North Carolina, a favourite with women, is at times compared with John Kennedy and Gephardt, the democratic leader at the Congress, who at his third attempt seems to have drained his driving power. It is hard for someone who can successfully face George W. to emerge from this patrol and put together the “war chest” required for a modern presidential campaign.
In fact costs are rocketing with every round of voting, electoral machines are growing in size and the weight of TV ads is increasing.
Some even state that, if this trend is not reversed, in some way, the Republican candidates supported by the economic and financial establishment will become practically unbeatable. Hence the forecasts for a battle between the president backed by a compact party and a challenger who, after winning the primary elections, will have to work hard towards the unity of a torn party.

But George W. also has another advantage: that of being able to count on Karl Rove, considered this generation’s most skilled electoral strategist. He is a retiring man, who shows little of himself and speaks even less, but, from his office in the White House’s annexe, he inspires most of the president’s initiatives and in a certain sense manages his relations with his electors.
Rove knows the art of masterly exploiting every success and patching up defeats, he anticipates what public opinion expects and skilfully manoeuvres behind the scenes of the Congress. It is natural that with such premises bookmakers, who have already long been at work, consider George W. a great favourite.

But this will not make the show less attractive: we must only hope that amendments made by many states to their election regulations will avoid the repetition of the events that took place in 2000, which risked overwhelming America’s very democratic credibility and which, at the end, only the nation’s collective sense of responsibility enabled to absorb without too many traumas. Translated by interpres sas