Love him or hate him—and the polls show that around a third of Americans do at least still approve of him—George Bush will be president for the whole of 2008 and the first 20 days of 2009. But with a Democrat-controlled Congress (not to mention a Republican Party that increasingly wants to distance itself from Mr Bush) and the distraction of the most open presidential race for 80 years, 2008 is likely to be a year of profound stasis.

On the domestic front, where nothing can be done unless White House and Congress agree, the gridlock will be almost total. On the foreign-policy side, where the president has more freedom to act alone, the chances for progress ought to be better. But this particular president is so weakened, and the problems he faces are so intractable, that there will be little room for progress here either.

It could have been very different. History is full of examples of divided government producing powerful results, because only when political risk is shared equally by both parties can the boldest reforms be made. But 2007 was a dismal year for domestic policy: an attempt to reform immigration policy was killed by attacks from right and left; the president's plans to reform health care were pronounced “dead on arrival” in the House of Representatives; the budget was negotiated amid acrimonious talk of vetoes and veto overrides.

It will be better in 2008 only in that, in the absence of serious attempts at policymaking, there will be fewer clashes. One possible area for co-operation (though don't hold your breath) may yet come over global warming. The White House has moved a long way towards accepting the man-made nature of the problem. Although the administration is most unlikely to endorse Democratic plans for capping carbon emissions, there may be ground for agreement on some incremental changes, such as somewhat tighter standards for car emissions. But the other big domestic issues that urgently need reform—immigration, health and social security—must all wait for the arrival of a new administration.

Iraq will be the most emotive subject of the campaign. But the most significant issue could well be health care

American foreign policy could potentially be more interesting. Mr Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, have tried hard to rebuild bridges to American allies in Europe and Asia, and Ms Rice's charm offensive is sure to continue in 2008. The task of improving transatlantic relations has been hugely helped by the advent of Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France, just as Angela Merkel has overseen a transformation in relations between Germany and America. European diplomats hope that the gradual coaxing of America back towards full engagement in multilateral bodies like the United Nations will continue. Progress in “denuclearising” North Korea could lead to a more fruitful period in American-Asian relations, too.

But Iraq and Iran will overhang all other areas of foreign policy. In Iraq, the president has made it clear that he is determined to maintain a large number of troops (probably more than 100,000) until the end of his presidency, barring either a catastrophic deterioration or a marked improvement there. The Democrats in Congress, who tried and failed to end the war in the summer of 2007, are unlikely to devote more than token energy towards trying again in 2008. This means that Mr Bush's successor, whoever she or he is, will inherit the business of disengagement from Iraq as their most awkward first-term problem. But it is Iran (see article) that may hold the key to how the last Bush year will unfold. The administration has worked hard on a multilateral diplomatic approach that has borne no fruit. It remains quite plausible that America will attempt unilateral military action in 2008, which would set back its relations with most of its allies significantly.

First personalities, then policies

But few people, in America at least, will be paying much attention to any of the sterile arguments that will rattle up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. The year's political oxygen will be wholly consumed by the 2008 presidential race, and to a lesser extent by the Democrats' bid to secure a proper working majority in the Senate rather than the measly one they have now. And it will be a fascinating ride, falling into two quite different stages. The first few months of the year will be taken up by the primaries, which will be more about personalities than policies. But once the party nominations are settled, a profound argument about policy will begin.

This is because there is a striking degree of agreement within the parties, but very clear differences between them. All the main Democrats, for instance, but none of the Republicans, favour remarkably similar plans to introduce universal health care to an America that badly needs it. All the Democrats, and none of the Republicans, want to rescind Mr Bush's tax cuts. And so on. Voters may be hard-pressed to see much difference between Hillary Clinton's views and those of Barack Obama on anything (though Mrs Clinton is more cautious than Mr Obama when it comes to withdrawing from Iraq and more hawkish about Iran); but there will be profound differences between whichever of them wins and the eventual Republican nominee. The Republican candidates, it is true, are deeply divided over moral matters such as abortion and gay marriage, but these are matters for the states, not the federal government.

Iraq will obviously be the most emotive subject in the campaign. But the most significant issue could well be health care—unless there is a major new terrorist attack on America in 2008 (in which case security will become the dominant issue and the Republican candidate will probably win), or else a serious recession (which would help the Democrat). On health, American voters will get a real choice. They will be asked to say whether they are prepared to see a significant amount of federal money—anything from $100 billion to $200 billion—spent on the almost 50m people who lack health insurance and are not covered by the Medicaid and Medicare government programmes, and who consequently live in fear of serious illness which can ruin them even if they fully recover. And beyond the 50m are tens of millions more who fear that losing their jobs and the health insurance that goes with them will expose them to the same risk.

It may not sound glamorous. But the absence of a universal health-care system is a main driver of the feeling of economic insecurity that will be a big feature of the 2008 campaign.





Christopher Lockwood: United States editor, The Economist