US Politics Razzmatazz: Impressions from Across the Pond – An Interview with Robert Francis

Minnesota is heralded for our Garrison Keillor “above average” populace. We have the highest rate of voter participation in the country. In 2008, according to George Mason University, 78% of eligible Minnesotans voted in the presidential election. Some Minnesota districts turn out more than 90%!

A while back CNN looked at why this might be: Our state boasts same day voter registration; has a highly engaged civic culture that segues with Robert Putman’s (Bowling Alone in America) theories about volunteerism contributing to a strong democracy – 38% of Minnesotans volunteer; education and awareness are high; we do not require voter ID; and we boast a vibrant political scene.

Yet, it is doubtful that even our exceptional citizenry understands all of the nuances of our electoral process. Ask an average citizen to define the difference between a democracy and a republic, many will likely falter. What about between direct and representational democracy? How the Electoral College works? Why some states have caucus systems and some primaries?

The United States is a Republic (many mouth these words in our patriotic Pledge of Allegiance but never stop to consider what that means).  A republic is similar to a representative democracy but with a written constitution that delineates basic rights, protecting the minority from being unrepresented or overridden by the majority. (Diffen)

With our current presidential primaries taking the global stage for a variety of reasons, not the least of which has to do with pure theatrical value, I wondered how some of my European colleagues view “the show.” Having lived in Europe for almost 10 years, earning my advanced degree in European Public Affairs from Maastricht University (Netherlands) and teaching there, consulting for a number of international NGOs, and lecturing in the European Parliament, I have a few executive level European experts to turn to.

I chose fellow Maastricht University classmate, Robert Francis, now a Director for the respected global consultancy Grayling Brussels (Twitter @TheEULobby). Francis has worked in the European Parliament, and as a UK national now living and working in the European Union’s main capitol city of Brussels, is able to offer a multi-layered, informed European perspective. 

The focus on individuals seems to be uniquely American - sure, Europeans know who head their parties, but there is also a bunch of Ministers, wannabe Ministers, and apparatchiks who do the rounds of interviews.
–Robert Francis, Director, Grayling Brussels

                                                                 ***

What are your overall impressions about how the United States conducts presidential elections?

To most Europeans, the US elections are a bit of a mystery. True, we know the main players and we see the razzmatazz, and we all have opinions about who we want to win - but when it comes to how many delegates each candidate needs, the "primaries", "super Tuesday" - these are all alien terms to us. My personal impression is that the campaigns are beginning earlier and the hype is like never before - Obama still has eight months to govern yet he has been a lame duck for the last six months. This does not seem to be very healthy for democracy, and not a good thing for the country. It has also stalled a number of initiatives, such as the EU-US trade agreement.

Please comment on our strict two-party system.

Two party systems are not particularly alien to Brits, who have grown up on a staple of Conservative-Labour politics since World War II, albeit with the coalition blip after the 2010 election. Yet far from ushering in a bright new future of coalition governments, the fallout from this has further strengthened the two party system, one party government.

On the European continent, coalition governing is the norm, and governments fall all the time as a result, even in stable prosperous countries such as the Netherlands. Belgium went 535 days without a government - a world record, yet life continued as normal (some even said it improved, since the caretaker government could only do what it had to, and didn't have a mandate to issue new proposals).

In Belgium there is a plethora of parties, with the French and Flemish communities having their own version of each party, which means forming a government involves solving a hugely complex equation. In comparison, perhaps the US model is actually very simple (though unworkable in a country like Belgium).

I don't think a two party system is particularly healthy, but there doesn't seem to be a solution in the US as anyone seen to be too left will be unelectable. It is noteworthy that if the Democrats were British, they would be right of centre, and even more right of centre if they were on the continent. Bernie Sanders seems to be shaking things up but he is the outsider candidate, and to European ears, most of what he says is not incredibly revolutionary.

What specifically do you observe in the current campaign, (from both parties)?

Trump has dominated the airwaves, even in Europe. Bluster, anti-immigration rhetoric, "telling it like it is" - the UK has our own version of this, known as the UK Independence Party, but they are nowhere near power. Trump, on the other hand, could be President. A scary prospect. France of course has the National Front, a party in the ascendancy and in Marine Le Pen a strong Presidential candidate. It is very tempting for Europeans to patronise the US, but they have their own populist, anti-immigrant, and protectionist parties in their backyard.

The Democrats have been in Trump's shadow, but most Europeans favour the softer, more sympathetic, less patriotic approach (Europeans generally don't put as much emphasis on the need to be patriotic - a few world wars put paid to that). Yet there is general ignorance even about the Democrats. Most Europeans don't know that Hillary supports the death penalty and would be horrified to know she does, but they would still favour her over Trump. Anyone but Trump, basically.

Can you contrast election politics with those of your individual Western European countries? The EU?

In the States it really is all show, but the UK is catching up with its own TV debates between Prime Minister candidates (even though you don't vote for an individual you vote for a party  - so it's all a bit of a sham).

Most elections are won on the local level, particularly in the UK, which operates a constituency, first past the post, system. If your local MEP kept the local hospital open, you won't mind voting for him/her even if you dislike their party. Hence, foreign issues, including EU concerns, take a backseat. There were mass protests around the Iraq War, but Blair still won a large majority afterwards.

Trump keeps saying he wants to "smash ISIS", but I don't know whether Americans will vote for him on that basis. Employment is probably a more important factor, as it would be in Europe.

As mentioned above, you would never start campaigning so far out from an election in Europe - most elections in the UK are called a few months in advance. There is longer preparation for EU elections, but the latter are often perceived as being of less importance, and news coverage is often rare.

The focus on individuals seems to be uniquely American - sure, Europeans know who head their parties, but there is also a bunch of Ministers, wannabe Ministers, and apparatchiks who do the rounds of interviews. In the US, the perception seems to be that it will be Trump v Hillary - who else will be in their team? Who knows? We don't.

Any additional comments?

The UK seems to be moving to an Americanization of politics, with the TV debates as an example. The UK is a lot more like the US in this respect, and Europeans are generally suspicious of the razzmatazz in the US - it is hard to imagine Merkel working the crowd like Hillary does, she is just not that sort of person. Europeans would take substance over style any day, and Merkel proves that.

When you hear Trump supporters saying they support him "because he is a successful businessman" - that is a very un-European approach. In fact, most Europeans would shy away from such a figure, so his appeal is also a mystery. Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, is also a businessman, but he likes to keep that quiet, and instead tries to be "one of us", literally having a pint in the local pub with "local people". Hard to imagine Trump portraying himself like that.

Susan Schaefer can be reached at susan@millcitymedia.org.