It is fortunate for George W. Bush that European governments do not have a vote in the elections on Tuesday. For if they had their way, the Texas governor would be nowhere in the contest and Al Gore would sweep to victory. Not that anyone is saying so openly. In Britain, when the Conservative government of John Major tilted visibly towards the incumbent, George Bush, in 1992, it paid the price of a frosty relationship with the eventual winner, Bill Clinton.
Eight years later, it would be reasonable to suppose that Tony Blair would prefer to see Mr Clinton's vice-president returned to the White House, although he has not said so openly. That is so, even though Mr Blair has not developed with Mr Gore the warm personal relationship that he has enjoyed with Mr Clinton - and seems unlikely to, given the vice-president's cooler personal style and lack of interest in Mr Clinton's and Mr Blair's pet "Third Way" ideas.
There are a number of reasons why the British and other European governments would be more at ease with a Gore victory, according to European officials and diplomats. The first is simply continuity. This offers comfort in areas such as economic policy, but reflects a general preference for the devil they know. Mr Gore has become reasonably well known to European officials and their top diplomats during his eight years as vice-president. Few top European politicians have met Mr Bush, who cancelled tentative plans for a getting-to-know-you tour earlier this year.
European diplomats say there is a more natural ideological affinity between the centre-left parties that govern most of Europe and the Democrats.
Mr Gore is respected as serious - and, in foreign policy, less likely to be swayed by domestic considerations than Mr Clinton. European governments are also concerned about some of Mr Bush's policy proposals, particularly in the defence area. The main concerns are his pledge to review US armed forces' global commitments, with the strong suggestion that he would pull US troops out of the Balkans, and his plans for national missile defence. European governments fear that both policies threaten to detach the US from its European allies and risk harming NATO.
Governments are also concerned that Mr Bush is more likely to move ahead with a missile defence system in a way that could upset Russia and lead Washington to retreat from its commitments around the world. The Europeans admit that some of this may be campaign rhetoric. One senior diplomat in Washington cited a German proverb: "The meal doesn't have to be eaten as hot as it's prepared." They acknowledge that Mr Bush's campaign has promised to consult widely with allies before withdrawing troops from the Balkans and not to act precipitately. On missile defence, Mr Bush has said he wants to protect US allies too, and that he would try to address a central European concern by attempting to secure Russian acceptance of the programme. Mr Bush's advisers also ask how a US vulnerable to missile attack could be said to be a more committed ally.
This is offset to some extent by some European concerns about Mr Gore's attitude to trade, including his insistence that trade agreements should be linked to labour and environmental standards. "The words `fair trade' have been substituted for free trade quite a lot during his campaign," said one diplomat. But some officials say that Mr Gore's views on trade are closer to their governments' views than Mr Bush's more unequivocal commitment to free trade. On the trade front, greater concern would be generated if Mr Gore took the White House and the Democrats, led by Dick Gephardt, took control of the House of Representatives.
Despite this, many European officials reckon the worst case would be a Bush victory accompanied by Republican control of the House and Senate. This would increase the chances for a raft of economic and defence initiatives from Congress that would truly worry Europeans. Indeed, if European governments had but one wish, it would for different parties to control Congress and the administration and the continuation of some legislative gridlock.
