Circling the wagons around the constitution

After ten years as a lobbyist in London and Brussels, I went to Washington DC for seven months. I was interested in comparing our systems and learning the ways of the only global superpower. I wanted to understand its perspectives on Europe and America’s vision for the future world order.

I returned with the belief that the true differences between America and Europe have been disguised over the last forty years by the Cold War and the common threat of communism, and by the special relationships between the individual leaders this encouraged.

The mockery of Florida

When I arrived I was excited by the prospect of being reinvigorated by a political milieu that had real power in our global society, one whose policies could become trail blazers for Europe. I was surprised by what I found. What struck me was not the difference in ‘operating systems’ but the totally different cultural attitude to government and its institutions. The constitution in the US defines the people socially and morally, as well as politically.

The true faith that Americans have in their constitution and all its vessels can appear complacent in comparison to European attitudes. The election, and the ensuing Florida drama, was an interesting example. When faith in the constitution was seen to be questioned, many merely re-wrote the scriptures to match the circumstance.

I would divide the impact of the Florida experience into two distinct time zones. The first three weeks was dominated by healthy cynicism and incredulity at the political and legal farce being played out in Florida. Washington was titillated by self-deprecating emails, dinner party jokes and amusement at how the world viewed the icon of democracy.

Then on about 27 November something collective occurred. It was not orchestrated; it appeared to be a universal change of attitude – a form of collective reassertion of their vows to the constitution. Was it Castro’s offer of assistance in counting the votes? Or was it a realisation that the past three weeks of anarchic criticism was undermining the whole rationale of Americanism as represented by the constitution? Suddenly, the jokes stopped and the dinner party banter changed dramatically. America realised that the world was mocking, and any complicity in ridicule had to stop.

From an outsider’s point of view, the ‘constitution in action’, as the process was now being described, appeared even more bizarre than the previous three weeks. I found myself asking, how could the politically appointed and affiliated judiciary sit in judgment at every level of this highly charged political process?

Yet for Americans, it managed to restore faith. No one was surprised when each court with its particular political leaning came out on the side of their home team. With cynicism repressed, the constitution was revered as holding the answers to the weird twists in the Florida soap opera. Constitutional atheism was defeated - not by some outside force, but from within the psyche of people themselves.

This is not to say that there weren’t serious partisan disagreements: “Gore was playing dirty”; “Bush’s brother was pulling all the Florida strings”; “Lieberman was betraying his values” and “Cheney was the arch manipulator”. But there were few who would admit that the constitution was not designed to deal with such an election or that its ‘democratic’ flaws were being revealed.

The language of political journalism changed. From describing America as a democracy before the election, commentators were now revelling in the fact that America was not a democracy, but a republic. They started making a virtue of the role of the judiciary in resolving representation issues. They praised the Electoral College as a safeguard against the rule of the majority.

After the final decision by the Supreme Court, there were some, like Hillary Clinton, who proposed that there should be changes to the Electoral College. But these treacherous aspersions which undermined the Book of Constitution were quickly quashed. For this would question the omnipresence of the Founding Fathers and their knowledge of the truth.

This constitutional near-crisis, far from undermining his legitimacy, has set George W Bush up for a great presidency. Why? Because his values and morals confirm faith in the constitution and, just as important, faith in American values. Given that he lost the popular vote and probably a fair vote in Florida also, many in Europe expected a lame duck President. In fact he has been transformed into an eagle.

I was struck too by the way that faith and ‘religion’ are present in all forms of life in America. In an almost papal sense, the Founding Fathers are seen to have been bestowed by God with wisdom – the wisdom of the constitution and the wisdom of the values for society. And while religions in America multiply, there is one core set of values for society. It is most definitely the Puritan work ethic. It is emotionally, though not religiously, Darwinian and it is conformist in a way that only Non-Conformists can be.

A return to isolationism

Maybe this is why Bush is now so popular. The new President is the prime traditionalist – with the personal as well as policy values to back it up. Following the Clinton period of economic growth and ethical by-pass, compounded by the near constitutional crisis of his impeachment, Bush is seen by many as a moral and social saviour.

This reassertion of the people’s faith in American values has significant implications for the rest of the world. Previous Presidents either had personal interests in international affairs, or special relationships (Reagan with Thatcher, Clinton with Blair). But true American Non-Conformist values are isolationist. Non-Conformists own a truth, a truth that has been delivered by God and it is the duty of all people to live this truth on earth.

With God-given rights comes God-given arrogance. America is not heading for a totally isolationist position internationally. But the level of trust with foreign powers will be gauged in terms of a more rigid interpretation of common values. Bush’s lack of understanding of the international order is compounded by his utter lack of interest in its moral, social and cultural diversity.

This assurance was most clearly expressed over Kyoto. The US’s rejection of the agreement would actually be privately welcomed by the European governments, political insiders in Washington post-rationalised. We in Europe wouldn’t really have wanted to sign this agreement - we were under pressure from a small group of vocal pressure groups. America was saving the industrial world from economic downturn. It was there to steer the misguided back onto the path of the righteous once again.

On the other hand, missile defence is seen by Americans as their inalienable right as defined in the constitution. While there are efforts to bring the rest of the world on board, if they don’t agree who cares? The British will be bought, in order to place the essential radar sites. But if the rest of the world either doesn’t agree that there is a threat or sees this as a truly isolationist move by the US, why would that bother George W? His job as President is to uphold the rights of Americans to defend themselves individually and collectively, as stated in the constitution.

From a lobbyist’s viewpoint it was interesting to see how, at every level of political negotiations the issues were referred back to the constitution. What did the Founding Fathers believe in relation to gun control, abortion, property legislation, policing and campaign finance reform? It is a battle between the Literalists and the Extrapolators – normally but not always Republican and Democrat respectively.

Redefining collective values

Collective belief and faith have disappeared in Europe. This may make us appear confused, disparate and lacking in any world vision. But now, after being in Washington, I would argue that our lack of such a prescriptive world vision reflects our tolerance and true belief in self-determination. To Americans, our lack of common morality and ‘faith’ may be seen as decadent. But our definition of common morality is defined by our ability to pick and choose or simply reject morality as defined by any ‘faith’ – spiritual or man-made.

I believe that with fewer visible geopolitical threats or overt strategic security dangers, a chasm between European values and American values is being revealed, that will only grow wider. From now on, outside threats will not be sufficient to create commonality.

President George II embodies the contemporary American psyche. It is not to be found in the ‘values’ of the East or West coasts, or in rural or urban America, but in what has been made of the Founding Fathers. God Bless America.