Are you disappointed with the result of the election?

Yes. But my opinion as a political scientist isn't important here. What interests me most are the reasons for this result and its consequences for the future. I am interested in understanding why a clear majority of American voters decided to re-elect Bush. Overall, it was a legitimate election. We must accept the fact. Now we have to think about the consequences.

What did Bush do right in his campaign?

In foreign policy Bush succeeded in using terrorism to build up a fog of fear that even his failure in Iraq was unable to penetrate. Perhaps, once this fog has cleared, Americans will be able to recognise the political flaws and shortcomings of the Bush administration. But in the run up to the election Bush succeeded in selling himself as a successful fighter of terrorism. Polls also showed that Bush managed to communicate more convincingly with the electorate than his opponent Kerry.

In lots of countries people were hoping for a Kerry victory, especially in Islamic countries. Would it have made any great difference to US policy in the Middle East had Kerry been elected?

There was very little difference in the campaign manifestos of Bush und Kerry with regard to the Middle East. Bush has taken leave of the peace process and stands firmly behind Sharon's government. Kerry would probably have made stronger efforts for peace. The result of the election is certainly a great disappointment for the Palestinian people, which will be exacerbated with the demise of Arafat.

Not just in the Middle East, in Europe, too, there is a lot of unhappiness about Bush's re-election. Must we expect transatlantic relations to deteriorate during a second term with George W. Bush?

The situation is not likely to get worse. But existing conflicts and controversies will probably persist. This became clear shortly after the election with Bush's first statements. His attitude remains unchanged, "Who isn't with us, is against us". There was no mention of compromise or a more intensive co-operation with Europe. Bush only announced that he intended to explain decisions more fully to allied partners in future.

So you don't think there will be any great changes in US foreign policy. What about domestic policy? Where will the accents be placed here in the next four years?

Fighting terrorism, tax cuts and the reform of the pension and health care systems. The most important factor within the country that must be heeded is the comfortable Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Here we have a constellation that has rarely occurred in the past hundred years. As far as America's legislation is concerned, Bush now has a free hand to implement his own agenda. In addition, there is the power of nominations to the Supreme Court that plays an extremely important role in the USA.

What will the effect of this be?

It means that the composition of the Supreme Court will become more conservative over the coming years. This influences a number of areas, such as capital punishment, abortion, civil unions or same-sex marriage, religious education in schools–to name just a few. The appointment of judges has long-term effects, which will continue to effect important issues long after Bush has left the White House.

ETH Professor Thomas Bernauer: "When the fog of fear begins to lift, perhaps Americans will be able to recognise the political flaws and shortcomings of the Bush administration." large

What do you think Bush will do to reduce the budget deficit?

Nothing. However, the economic cycle could continue its upward trend over the next few months and the deficit would then seem less serious. Voters didn't seem to be bothered by this issue either. According to polls the most important motives were religious and moral values and dangers arising from terrorism. It is interesting that the budget deficit and Iraq were very low down on the list of voters' concerns in these surveys.

Will he cut social benefits?

Up until now Bush has not cut social benefits and he probably won't do so now. This is unusual for a republican. In the continental European sense of the term I would say he is an "anti-liberal". The “normal" liberal is someone who champions the segregation of religion and state and minimal government. Bush conforms to neither of these descriptions. I would call him an "anti-liberal statist".

What problems could the US economy face in the near future?

Many experts are expecting the dollar to fall still more. If it falls by a lot it could lead to a rise in interest rates in the US. This would reduce economic growth, which could make Bush's second term very difficult.

Let's speculate on the presidential elections in four years time. What do you personally think of a republican candidate, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger or a democratic one, like former First Lady Hillary Clinton?

For Arnold Schwarzenegger to become president would call for an amendment to the constitution. I don't think this will happen. Personally, I would be pleased to see a Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama team. These two would be a dream ticket for the next democratic candidacy. If Hillary Clinton does stand, however, the campaign for the presidency will probably be a lot dirtier than the one we have just witnessed.