THE AMERICAN MID-TERMS

American voters gave Barack Obama and his Democratic party a bloody nose on Tuesday. They were fed up with politicians in general and him in particular; they didn't feel happy with themselves. Add to that the fact that the people who vote in mid-term elections tend to be Republican, and the Democrats were up against it. Nevertheless, the size of the defeat was surprising. They lost eight seats in the Senate, giving the majority to the Republicans 53-46 (a run-off in December will probably make it 54-46); and lost further ground in the House of Representatives. The legislative branch of the American Government is now firmly in Republican hands.

Does that mean that the whole of the Government will now be Republican? Well, no. For under the U.S. constitution, the President can veto Republican bills he doesn't like; and although the Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress, that majority is not big enough to overturn any veto. In foreign policy, President Obama is not that constrained by the views of the legislature; while in domestic politics, he can also do a fair amount of governing through executive orders. There wouldn't be major reforms or changes, but there wouldn't be (eg) a rollback of Obamacare either.

America is actually in the same situation as it was in 1994, when Bill Clinton was President and got stuffed at the mid-terms. He changed course, decided to work with the Republicans, got reelected in 1996, and (despite being impeached) both enacted major reforms and balanced the budget. Could Mr. Obama do the same? In theory, yes. Yet Mr. Clinton was a touchy-feely politician in a way that the more cerebral Mr. Obama is decidedly not. Besides, the Republican party is today both more disciplined and less inclined to compromise than it was 20 years ago. My prediction is that the legislative gridlock of the past two years will continue. The big question will then be who gets the blame for that in the presidential election in 2016.

Walter Blotscher