U.S. PRESIDENCY —I Post For King And Premier Combined

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29220, 2 June 1960, Page 16

U.S. PRESIDENCY —I Post For King And Premier Combined

[By

HERBERT NICHOLAS,

M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford]

Every leap year the United States plunges into an election contest more protracted, more complicated and more animated than any other in the world. Why is the contest so long? Why does it always fall in a leap year, come pestilence, war, civil war, or summit talks? To find the answers we have to look at that remarkable document, the United States Constitution.

When, in 1776, the American colonies threw off what they called “the tyranny" of King George 111 they created in his place the office of President. But realising that an elected President could be every bit as tyrannous as a hereditary monarch, they set a limit to his term of office. He was to rule for four years only; then, whatever the state of the nation’s affairs, he was to step down and return his powers to the sovereign people. So it was with Washington in 1792, though he was so popular that he was re-elected unopposed; so it was with Lincoln in 1864, though it meant having a dingdong election when the Union was fighting for its life against the Confederacy; so it was with Franklin Roosevelt in the midst of the Second World War in 1940 and 1944; so it is with Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960. Democracy Comes First

To the outsider it may seem a drawback thus to subject the political process to the rigid dictation of the calendar. To the Americans it appears just the reverse. It is putting democracy first; it is guaranteeing that on the day appointed, whatever happens, the people shall have the chance to express their will. Lincoln, speaking after the election that cut right across the Civil War, said it was “a necessity.

. If the rebellion could force us to forgo or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already ruined us.” So it is that in 1960 the eyes of the American people will increasingly be fixed on the events leading up to November 8, however strongly happenings in the rest of the world compete for their attention.

The man the American people choose to lead them will be the most powerful figure in the free world. In a real sense, he is monarch and prime minister rolled into one. Monarch because, though an elected politician, he is the head of the American State Prime Minister because, though he does not have control of his party in the legislature, he does have control of the machinery of government. He appoints the Cabinet, gives orders to the civil servants, shapes foreign policy and has ultimate control over the huge army, navy and air force of the United States. It is no accident that the President does not control Congress, the American legislature. The Constitution, fearful that he might become too powerful, allows him to do no more than offer advice about the making of laws and the control of the nation's finances. He is not allowed to have a seat in Congress, nor are his Cabinet Ministers. Just as he draws his executive authority directly from the people, by the process of election, so the congressmen draw their legislative authority from the people of their States and districts. Federal Character

Congress in fact represents the federal character of the United States. A country so vast could not possibly be governed as a unified whole. From Washington on the Atlantic to San Francisco on the Pacific is further than from London to Constantinople. Although there are great uniformities of habit, speech, and customs, there remain obstinate differences of climate, race, religion and economic interests which are just as great as those comprised in Europe—perhaps greater. The object of the federal system is to cater for this diversity while at the same time giving the country the benefits of a central government. The essence of the federal idea is simple. It is to retain in the hands of the States all that is truly local, while giving to the central government all that properly concerns the nation as a whole

Thus, State governments, representing local interests (even though some States, like Texas, are bigger than any European country) are responsible for such matters as the administration of the criminal law, local policing, local roads, health and welfare, public education and a great deal of social security. They have

nothing to do with trade, foreign policy, defence, relations between the States, or the control of industry and agriculture when they assume nation-wide proportions; all these are matters for the federal government at Washington.

But that still leaves a large area for State activity, and a great State like New York will easily have a larger annual budget than a sovereign nation like Belgium. In Washington it is Congress which is pre-eminently charged with the responsibility for representing these .diverse interests. The upper house, the Senate, contains 100 senators—two from each of the 50 States, including Hawaii and Alaska.

The lower House of Representatives, which is often loosely called Congress, is not unlike the British House of Commons. There are 437 congressmen representing areas of roughly equal size, elected locally and largely concerned to look after the local interests and cares of their constituents. Two Parties

It is a safe bet that the Senators and Congressmen will all be labelled either Republican or Democrat. For any other party to get its supporters elected is rare. It is tempting to say that the Republicans are the American Conservatives and the Democrats a kind of Liberal-Labour party; tempting, but dangerous. The size and diversity of America make it impossible for any party to confine itself within the limits of a single doctrine or a single interest; each group must be elastic enough to embrace within itself some of the interests of all the particular regions. Thus, while the Democrats probably have more appeal to the poor and the Republicans rather more to the rich, both parties have in fact to tailor their approach so that it attracts above all the middle-of-the-road voter. As a result they come near to saying pretty well the same thing, looking for the same type of candidate, and, sometimes, when in office, behaving very much like each other. Man Before Party

Perhaps that is' why, when Americans are asked how they are going to vote, they Will give their answer much more often in terms of the man than in terms of the party. Indeed it is no uncommon thing for an American to elect a senator of one party and a congressman of another, or even, while voting for a Republican President, to try to return a Democratic Congress. That is exactly the position at present, where a Republican. Eisenhower, sits in the White House while Democratic majorities rule the Senate and House of Representatives. It does not mean there is deadlock; it means only that there is plenty of scope for manoeuvre and compromise for what the Americans call “politics.” But the situation does have certain consequences which are strange to people used to the British parliamentary system. It means that there is no Leader of the Opposition in the British sense. It often means that the President may be saying one thing while the most influential figures in Congress may be saying something else. Foreigners, unused to the American system, may easily jump to rash conclusions about what the official policy of the United States may be. During an election year, in particular, a great many diverse and contradictory things will get said and the air will be full of much sound and fury which will often signify nothing.—(Central Press. All Rights Reserved.) (To Be Continued)