Opinion: we don't have to fear gridlock or flip-flop in farm policy

It was probably only political nerds like myself that stayed up late watching the US election results roll in on Tuesday night. That said, most people probably cocked an ear to the news on Wednesday morning as more and more results were reported.

After all, the USA is the world’s most influential democracy, perhaps in history, certainly today. So it matters to all of us who is in charge, what their domestic and foreign policy platform looks like and how likely they are to enact legislation to achieve those policy goals.

America’s politics is divided right down the middle and has been for some time. Even now, as I write on Friday afternoon, there is no conclusive result. Neither the Democrats or Republicans have control of either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The outcome now comes down to a handful of contests.

Tight races

The Senate is the upper house and each state elects two representatives, regardless of population. With only three of the 100 seats left to fill, it’s 49-48 to the Republican rarty.

As the Democrats would have the casting vote in a 50-50 senate, both parties now need two of the remaining three seats.

It could all come down to a run-off in Georgia, a state that requires a candidate to gain more than 50% of the votes to be deemed elected. This is one of the quirks of US politics - each state has its own rules when it comes to how it fills its seats.

The lower house, the House of Representatives, sees each state elect members relative to their state population. So states such as Alaska and Delaware have only one representative, while California has 52 and Texas has 38.

It is also on a knife edge, with the Republican party only a handful of seats short of the 218 they need for a majority. However, that majority will be pretty small, so likely Republican party speaker of the house Kevin McCarthy will have a hard time keeping his broad church in line.

Gridlock

It seems inevitable that there will be a balance of power between the two parties. President Joe Biden is a Democrat, but like most recent presidents, his party won’t have control of both houses. Without that control, he can’t railroad through his policy objectives.

Barack Obama found it impossible to achieve much in his last two years in office, as the Republican Party, in control of both Senate and House, blocked pretty much every legislative proposal he advanced.

Even his nominee for a supreme court vacancy was blocked, allowing Donald Trump to get his preferred candidate in when he assumed office in 2016.

Gridlock is bad news. A political system in a state of paralysis anywhere is undesirable, but in the world’s most powerful country in terms of military might, diplomatic influence and economic strength without the capacity to react quickly to domestic or world events is a disaster.

Gridlock is in part a result of the unique nature of the US electoral system

At least in terms of Ukraine, there has been a cross-party consensus that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine required a strong and sustained response, even if it hurt Americans in the pocket.

Gridlock is in part a result of the unique nature of the US electoral system. In most countries, the government is led by someone who can gain the support of a majority of the parliament.

In the US, anyone can become president and appoint their own cabinet. But they need to get legislation approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, where Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi or Kevin McCarthy will be poised to water down or destroy anything that doesn’t fit the controlling party's world view.

There is another phenomenon from the two-party system of US politics that is even more destabilising than gridlock. With the two parties as polarised politically as they ever have been, a change of power means 180-degree turnrounds in key policy areas.

We saw that when Donald Trump dedicated the early part of his presidency to dismantling Barack Obama’s legislative achievements. Healthcare was turned on its head, moves to curb fossil fuel production were reversed, with fracking and Arctic oil and gas drilling encouraged.

And this extended to global matters. Under Trump, the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord. When Joe Biden was elected, the US returned. Trump openly admired Putin, forged ever-closer links with Saudi Arabia and recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Relevance to Ireland

There is little anyone in Ireland can do about the fractious nature of US politics. Like the rest of the world, we have to get on with whoever is in charge in Washington DC. But is there anything we can learn in terms of Irish politics?

I think there is. Firstly, we have to recognise that our system of government is very different to the US. Theirs is an uneasy balance between the legislative (House and Senate), executive (president, cabinet and the various departments) and judicial (the supreme court). There is the added complication of state and national (federal) government and law.

If the Republic of Ireland was a US state, we would be bang in the middle in terms of population, ranking 25th between Alabama and Louisiana. In terms of area, we would be 41st, smaller than South Carolina, but larger than West Virginia.

We can be pretty sure that even after the next election, the broad thrust of farm policy won’t change overnight

There are huge cultural differences between the northeast, the midwest, the deep south, the mountain region and the west coast. Climates are different, the economy is different, attitudes and demographics vary hugely.

By comparison, Ireland is fairly homogenous. The urban-rural divide is often exaggerated by commentators, particularly Dublin versus the rest of the country.

But our political system is more diverse. The control Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had over our politics has eroded in the last 20 years.

Despite Sinn Féin’s dramatic rise in the last five years, single-party government is unlikely in the near future. We are likely to see a coalition of parties, some of whom will be only a little to the left or right of the middle ground.

Lurches in public policy are also unlikely. We will see changes, but managed change rather than the flipping seen under Trump in the US.

Today's news that the Supreme Court have ruled that ratifying the CETA trade deal would be unconstitutuional is very different to some of the US Supreme Courts rulings.

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of CETA, the trade deal between the EU and Canada, there are some obvious differences between the Irish and US systems.

Firstly, the government can legislate to repair a legal anomoly highlighted by the court case, and will almost always have the numbers to do so. There is also the ability to have a referendum to amend the constitution.The US amends it's constitution by a vote of congress followed by ratification by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures. With the country as politically divided as it currently is, that is practically impossible for any red button issue.

Farming policy fairly stable

For farmers, the good news is that we won’t see radical shifts in policy anytime soon either. We know that Leo Varadkar is due to succeed Michael Martin as Taoiseach on 17 December in an agreed change in the leadership of this collation government.

He will reshuffle the cabinet to some degree, but even if he changes agriculture minister or the ministers of state, it will be business as usual in Agriculture House.

We can be pretty sure that even after the next election, the broad thrust of farm policy won’t change overnight. That’s because we have set out the key objectives and programmes for the next five years.

A Sinn Féin-led government won’t change ACRES, BISS, CRISS, convergence, eco schemes or any of the rest of the alphabet soup of CAP and domestic policies.

The sectoral target won’t change from 25%. The rules around nitrates, derogation, pesticides, fertiliser usage and stocking rates won’t be altered without Brussels approval.

Farmers might see this as bad news. Many farmers are deeply unhappy with the thrust of agriculture policy. However, the reality is that as long as we are members of the EU, there will be political pressure to reduce the environmental impact of farming. Mary-Lou McDonald, Matt Carthy, Michael Fitzmaurice or Danny Healy Rae won’t change that.

And for a farmer, it is preferable to have a progressive coherent policy platform with long-term goals. The gaps are in pathways to achieving those goals. And as we have seen in the last 12 months, food prices are going to be at the heart of the matter.

If rises in price can absorb the higher input costs in 2022 and leave a margin for farmers, the extra cost of producing food in low-carbon, probably lower-input systems can also be absorbed. And as we have seen this year, some sectors have proven more robust than others.

The hope must be that whoever is in government will fight to create a sustainable future for our most vulnerable sectors, whether that be pigs and poultry or fruit and vegetables as it has been this year, or the more usually adrift sheep and suckler sectors.

There has never been an anti-farming government in Ireland. I don’t see any prospect that there ever will.