With one week to go in the US presidential election, voters, and an increasingly curious and interested watching world, are perplexed about the outcome. Mr Al Gore and Mr George W. Bush are neck and neck in the opinion polls. But many of the best-informed observers detect a real momentum towards Mr Bush, amid signs that Mr Gore has failed to capitalise on his advantages and is thrashing around for support in the final stages of the campaign. It is as well to take the possibility of a Bush victory fully into account.
Although this contest has been predominantly about domestic US politics, it has definite consequences for the rest of the world. A victory for Mr Gore would obviously represent continuity of foreign and economic policy. That is important for the international system at a time when US economic growth has sustained world recovery to an unprecedented degree. In the same way, the US role as the world's only superpower has given it a pivotal position in international political and security affairs.
Continuity does not mean unchanging policy, but rather the likelihood that it will be developed incrementally rather than shifting sharply. From that point of view, there is much to be said for Mr Gore, who has the experience and knowledge to guide his country through a potentially turbulent period of change, both economically and politically.
Mr Bush has far less experience and knowledge of international affairs, or of national government. His economic, social, environmental and civil rights policies are untried and potentially divisive. His foreign policy positions are distinctively different, especially with respect to Europe.
Recent remarks by his principal foreign policy adviser make it clear that the role of US troops in European peacekeeping missions such as Kosovo and Bosnia would be radically reviewed by a Bush administration. That could make for a more dramatic evolution of EU security and defence policies than is currently envisaged.
Too rapid or hamfisted an attempt to implement the Bush policy agenda could jeopardise the stability and prosperity his campaign has so skilfully taken for granted. But Mr Bush has a very capable political and policy team working with him, whose confidence would be reinforced were he to win the election. Their instinct would be to rein in policy radicalism. That would chime with his own efforts to distance himself from the assertively ideological right-wing policies followed by congressional Republicans in the mid-1990s. All this would tend to mitigate sharp discontinuities of policy were Mr Bush to emerge victorious next week.
It has been a fascinating but not a very inspiring campaign. Neither man commands support based on traditional notions of political leadership. Much has centred on personality rather than policy. In itself, that is no bad thing. Character flaws can be multiplied enormously in such a powerful and lonely office. Mr Gore has had a gruelling exposure to such scrutiny during this campaign, much of it revolving around whether he can be trusted to lead and has the political judgment to do so. His experience and knowledge of government certainly equip him for the presidency. If he fails to achieve it, he will have only himself to blame.