Every new President faces one specific problem of concern to Americans generally. Other lesser issues are relevant but it is the big issue which is determinative. If he solves it, he is generally considered a success although other factors might impinge on his ability to gain re-election and on his place in history.

Nixon inherited the Vietnam war; Ford inherited Nixon's defilement of the office; Reagan inherited a stagnant economy; Clinton inherited a stale and bored country. All succeeded in overcoming the prime challenge (Nixon, of course, is remembered most for Watergate but his record on the economy and foreign affairs stands comparison with any).

Carter inherited an oil crisis and things never improved. Bush Senior inherited the inability of anyone to be another Reagan and just trod water for four years. Bush Junior inherited too much bureaucracy but has made minimal progress in rolling back the state, and the less said about Iraq the better.

I believe that the central issue which will determine not only the identity of but also the success or failure of the new President is the balance between the power of the state and individual liberty. It is, I believe, no coincidence that the same issue is of huge importance at the same time on both sides of the Atlantic.

This is an issue which has been a key part of Senator McCain's campaign while Senator Obama has focussed primarily on health care (no doubt because it has been Senator Clinton's preoccupation and she had to be defeated before he could turn to the national debate).

No President in modern times has been elected by concentrating his campaign on a single issue of domestic policy other than macro-economics.

Perhaps Senator Obama will follow Tony Blair's example and seek office on a ticket of "education, education, education" and "24 hours to save (create?) the health service", but domestic policy slogans of that type can only win an election when the underlying economy is sound and there is no other great issue causing concern.

My guess (I would like to put it stronger than that, but it is just a guess) is that the issue I have identified above will be the focus of the campaigns of both candidates. The more Senator Obama promotes a tax-and-spend agenda, the less credible he will be when promising that government interference in everyday life will be limited.

It would not surprise me at all to see President McCain inaugurated next January because I believe he has his finger on the pulse of the single most important issue in his country.

Are you suggesting that politicans are weak-willed souls who submit to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, faithfully signing everything in their in-trays and repeating the line given to them by the officials?

Perhaps in the this case a Cameron premiership will end up looking more like a Blair one, as the civil servants in the Treasury suck him into their views on taxation and the various departments explain to his various ministers the 'importance' of all their spending.

I read several analyses of McCain’s ‘League of Democracies’ in normally pro-EU or pro-UN media. With the exception of Federal Union there has been unanimous condemnation of an idea that is essentially identical to Kant’s ‘League of Peace’. I would have thought the Guardian, FT, etc. would have supported an idea of such impeccable liberal credentials and can only conclude anti-Americanism leads them to dismiss McCain’s big idea.

Reply: I support none of them, as I do not want a President of Europe, and want someone who starts to dismantle the central power of the EU

BTW I was wondering if you had any thoughts on McCain’s ‘League of Democracies’ idea which Obama also seems to support in a slightly different guise. The idea is for an UN-lite organisation consisting of only the world’s democracies and intended to enforce the peace when the UN cannot reach agreement. It seems a superficially attractive idea to me but I assume it would only ever make a difference if willing to act without UN approval which seems dangerous.

I would prefer to see a more exclusive body than McCain envisages, e.g. formed by NATO evolving to take in English-speaking countries in the Pacific and other reliable partners such as Japan, S. Korea, etc. and perhaps keeping some of the less reliable Continental countries out of veto-wielding positions in its unified military command. This might grow to provide more than just a defence and foreign policy setting role, e.g. to offer EU-like rights for the free movement of workers between its members.

Reply: I favour an alliance of the Angloshpere democracies, as a counter weight to the EU and a faster way of reaching decisons than the UN, whilst keeping our UN membership.

So like Blair, he may be successful at winning elections and getting people pointlessly enthused in support of a vague message, but I don't think that he will be an effective leader in any sense. Carter for the new Millenium perhaps when the world needs a new Reagan or Barry Goldwater