The acrimony engendered by bitter post-election controversy in the United States appeared to have abated when president-elect Bush and vice president Gore made worthy statements about uniting the American people, with a peaceful and democratic transfer of power. Recent events in Washington seem to indicate that while the conflict between Republicans and Democrats may have ostensibly eased, a sharp division between those known in the American usage as Liberals and Conservatives, often the same people in any event, has now opened up.
There are indications in his selection of personnel that Mr Bush is prepared to pursue a more conservative agenda than his extremely narrow victory might have justified. His nominee as Secretary of Labor, Ms Linda Chavez, who was forced to back down, was regarded by the trade unions as an arch enemy. The man Mr Bush wants as Attorney General, Mr John Ashcroft, is a representative of what Americans call the "religious right" who has been actively involved in the merciless battles between America's "pro-life" and "pro-choice" factions.
Reaction from liberal circles has been sharp. Ms Chavez's appointment was opposed on the grounds that she may have employed an illegal immigrant at low cost and without the expense of social security payments. Ms Chavez and her supporters state that the Guatemalan woman involved in the controversy and who may have been paid occasionally for household work, was taken into the Chavez household as an act of charity. Democrats remember that when Ms Kimba Wood was forced to back away from Mr Clinton's nomination for the post of Attorney General because she had employed an illegal immigrant, Ms Chavez was one of her most vocal critics. Opposition to Mr Ashcroft is focused more on ideology than on a single incident. Civil rights organisations, women's groups, gay rights activists and others are planning strong resistance to his nomination as Attorney General.
The Presidency, the Congress and the newly appointed members of the Bush administration will not provide the only centres of attention in what in Europe would be described as a left-right struggle. Divisions now exist throughout society in the United States and these have been emphasised by the 5-4 split in the Supreme Court. Once regarded as an Olympian institution whose decisions were those of the wisest women and men in the land, the court is now seen as prone to the same sort of political infighting that is found almost everywhere else. Should the court's conservative majority hold together in upcoming decisions, President Clinton's Clean Air Act may go by the boards and the rights of disabled citizens to retain positions in the public service may be diminished.
While the challenges to Mr Bush's nominees may appear partisan to European eyes and while it may appear at times that St Francis of Assisi might not have been pure enough for office in Washington, the very openness of America's democracy is something to be admired rather than scoffed at. The wisdom of shifting the direction of American politics so radically at a time when the country is so evenly divided is, however, open to question. It could cost Mr Bush his job in four years time.