Coverage of US general election

 I have complained in the past about the excessive coverage of the four-yearly American boxing match on domestic BBC TV. The issues are always domestic and personality-driven. There seldom seems to be a change of foreign policy when Democrat blue turns to Republican red or vice versa.

It does give work to the huge staff of BBC America, which does seem to be a staff benefit. BBC America does sell output to other stations round the world, but does it pay for itself? Why do we see around a dozen BBC reporters from the States, while Canada - a fellow Commonwealth member - receives little coverage and then from a US-based reporter? Why does the whole of South America merit only a couple of reporters, who do not seem to stay very long?

But this year is different. The nature of the contest and its outcome have implications for the UK.

Prime minister Johnson and his manager Dominic Cummings clearly draw their inspiration from the way the presidency was won and the style in which it is conducted. Trump's grotesque chauvinism and appeal to the worst aspects of human behaviour, especially his racism, have their echoes over here. Johnson also lies consistently and is happy to set different groups of the population against each other. Manipulation of voters' feelings via social media was a significant contribution to election success on both sides of the Atlantic, though the technology behind it was almost certainly applied to traditional campaigning also. If there is a decisive anti-Trump vote on November 3rd, so decisive that Trump cannot convincingly challenge it in the courts, it will show that US voters have had the scales lifted from their eyes. Those moderate Conservative MPs (there are some) who have so far gone along with Johnson on the sole grounds that he has been successful may well have second thoughts as a result. 

As to foreign affairs, the world needs a president of the US who honours treaties and realises that he does not know better than the experts. One expects less interference in others' affairs from a Biden presidency. We should expect a Democrat presidency to be at least as tough to negotiate a treaty with as any; Democrats are traditionally less keen on free trade than Republicans. However, one can count on Biden to negotiate in good faith and be consistent. His record suggests that he listens to expert advisers. Consequently, there would be a serious attempt to reverse policies which potentiate global warming under Biden. One trusts that he would also restore America’s contribution to the WHO – indeed, also cooperate more with the UN in general.

Of course, as is entirely possible, voters who turn against Trump could give a consolation vote to the Republicans in the Senate and Lower House. There could be deadlock in Washington.