David Brooks On The British Political System

[Zaune]

Link

In 1920, Winston Churchill’s mother held a dinner for M. Paul Cambon to celebrate the end of his 20 years as the French ambassador to Britain. One of the guests asked Cambon what he had seen in his two decades in London.

“I have witnessed an English revolution more profound and searching than the French Revolution itself,” Cambon replied. “The governing class have been almost entirely deprived of political power and to a very large extent of their property and estates; and this has been accomplished almost imperceptibly and without the loss of a single life.”

Buried in that answer is a picture of how politics should work. Britain faced an enormous task: To move from an aristocratic political economy to a democratic, industrial one. This transition was made gradually, without convulsion, with both parties playing a role.

This wasn’t because the political leaders were so brilliant. They simply responded to a series of immediate problems. Nor was it because they were postpartisan angels. The parties fought vigorously.

It’s just that the system worked. Each party took different whacks at pieces of the great national problem, depending on its interests. Opposing parties, when it was their turn in power, quietly consolidated the best of what the other had achieved. Gradually, through constructive competition, the country quarreled its way forward.

The United Kingdom seems to be in the middle of that sort of constructive quarrel now. Usually when I travel from Washington to Britain I move from less gloom to more gloom. But this time the mood is reversed. The British political system is basically functional while the American system is not.

As the British politician Oliver Letwin has argued, a generation of misrule between 1945 and 1979 left the U.K. with three large problems: a stifled industrial economy; an overcentralized welfare state; and an enervated people, some of whom are locked in cycles of poverty.

By liberating the economy, Margaret Thatcher tackled the first of these problems, and subsequent Labour governments consolidated her gains. Meanwhile, a series of governments have been fitfully tackling problems two and three, reforming the welfare state and energizing the populace.

In conversation, the Conservative and Labour leaders are happy to rubbish each other, but what’s striking to an outsider is how much their concerns overlap. A series of governments, going all the way back to John Major’s administration in the ’90s, have tried to decentralize power, come up with new ways to measure government performance, reduce welfare dependency and improve early childhood programs.

Many of the programs have failed, but the general direction is clear: the move from a centralized, industrial-era state to a networked, postindustrial one.

The momentum is especially evident just now. Prime Minister David Cameron is a skilled politician who dominates the scene. His agenda doesn’t merely touch his party’s hot buttons, but moves in many directions at once.

His austerity program includes tax increases as well as spending cuts. He’s vigorously protecting the foreign aid budget as he cuts almost everywhere else. He has aggressively reformed welfare and education while retreating on health service reform.

By balancing his agenda, by conveying a sense of momentum, by insisting on fiscal responsibility, he’s remained popular. His party did well in the recent local elections, even amid the fiscal pain.

Britain is also blessed with a functioning political culture. It is dominated by people who live in London and who have often known each other since prep school. This makes it gossipy and often incestuous.

But the plusses outweigh the minuses. The big newspapers still set the agenda, not cable TV or talk radio. If the quintessential American pol is standing in his sandbox screaming affirmations to members of his own tribe, the quintessential British pol is standing across a table arguing face to face with his opponents.

British leaders and pundits know their counterparts better. They are less likely to get away with distortions and factual howlers. They are less likely to believe the other party is homogenously evil. They are more likely to learn from a wide range of people. When they do hate, their hatreds are more likely to be personal and less likely to take on the tenor of a holy war.

The British political system gives the majority party much greater power than any party could hope to have in the U.S., but cultural norms make the political debate less moralistic and less absolutist. The British press also do an amazing job of policing corruption. The media go into a frenzy at the merest whiff of malfeasance. Last week, for example, a minister was pummeled for saying clumsy things about rape.

Tuesday, as President Obama visits London, we will get a glimpse of the British political culture. We Americans have no right to feel smug or superior.

Posted without comment, because I don't even know where to start.

[Big Orange]

Yeah, he sounds like an idiotic Thatcherite/Blairite apologist and Britain's post-industrial economy has been an ongoing disaster for increasingly more and more people, the real cause for millions of people caught in cycle of poverty, not the welfare per se. Britain's industry became too unstifled, leading to outsourcing. Banking and property scams have become the norm. Two thirds of young couples can't buy a house. And our democratic political system has become quite inbred if all the politicians from different parties relate more to each other on a social level than to the rest of the populace through a shared insulated priviliged background (more distant from reality).

[SirNitram]

It's unusual to see Brooks slip on his 'real American' act so blatantly, but this is not surprising. He's ultimately an idiot who wants everything sorted out by the aristocracy, views D.C. as the property of his own collection of cocktail-party friends, and squeals with girlish delight at people who fake being 'serious'. Note, especially, that talking about the transition of power is spoken of without convulsion by Brooks. Can anyone remember the big conflict that happened during that time period he sings praises of?

He makes it clear he wants an aristocracy, in speaking of the 'functional' British system, with everyone knowing each other from the same schools.

[whackadoodle]

David Brooks is a neocon globalist dicksucking dipshit. End stop.

Young Master Daniel Knowles of the Telegraph called him on his ignorance of Britain's recent history ( hell, Fried-brooks is pig-ignorant of nearly all things outside the shortbu... erm, the Beltway ) in this brief piece.

Let’s take a few choice bits, starting with the opening section. Apparently, from 1900 to 1920:

Britain faced an enormous task: To move from an aristocratic political economy to a democratic, industrial one. This transition was made gradually, without convulsion, with both parties playing a role.

Gradually? Without convulsion? I don’t know if you’re aware of this David, but most British historians believe that the First World War was pretty convulsive. And definitely not very gradual. He seems to think that Britain cast off her aristocratic rulers by a process of “constructive competition.” In fact, what happened was that we went to war, conscripted millions of young men and sent them to France to be machine-gunned.

Oh, it gets better:

So Mr Brooks’ history is distinctly dodgy. But perhaps he has a better grasp of our politics? Well, no. Take this:

Britain is also blessed with a functioning political culture. It is dominated by people who live in London and who have often known each other since prep school. This makes it gossipy and often incestuous.

Prep school? I’m afraid I think Mr Brooks is referring to public school (Eton, I expect) though Boris Johnson does, of course, share a primary school with Ed Miliband. That aside, the statement is still ludicrous – is being ruled by a clique of Oxford PPEist ex-public-school boys really what you would call a functioning political culture? And if so, how does that chime with the claim that we’re “democratic”?

It is obvious why this man is popular in Westminster – he is telling us how perfect we all are. But this self-indulgent ego-boosting nonsense is just what we need to get away from. While our politicos go around slapping themselves on the backs about how utterly indescribably and uniquely brilliant they all are, the British public hates them more than ever. In fact, it’s all a little bit like that place Mr Brooks knows so much better – the United States!

The only part that Knowles got wrong is the ides that Brookes knows the United States.
The Beltway is not the United States.

[Simon_Jester]

If we abstract out the proposition "the British political system is functioning better than the American system," strip away all our objections to Brooks personally and to the faults in the argument he uses to justify asserting that the British system is functioning better...

Is there any basis in reality for the assertion that the British system is functioning better at the moment? We've certainly seen plenty of complaint about the US system, for lots of reasons that I'm sure I don't have to spell out for anyone who shows up on N&P at all frequently. Do the British have it just as bad? Better? Worse?

[Big Orange]

^Our politicians are not quite as genuinely nuts as Sarah Palin who threatened to become Vice President?!

But in general UK career politicians come across as universally mediocre and the public are growing to really dislike civil servants such as the police as well, especially with thugs out of a comic book such as PC Simon Harwood serving in the Met. And while it's mostly to do with morale/perception than actual effective oppression, the British public and press have such an intense dislike of CCTV installed by the state too.

And the foreign "aid" to poor, barely functional countries like Pakistan most likely means bribes to the corrupt tyrants who rule there.

[UnderAGreySky]

If we abstract out the proposition "the British political system is functioning better than the American system," strip away all our objections to Brooks personally and to the faults in the argument he uses to justify asserting that the British system is functioning better...

Is there any basis in reality for the assertion that the British system is functioning better at the moment? We've certainly seen plenty of complaint about the US system, for lots of reasons that I'm sure I don't have to spell out for anyone who shows up on N&P at all frequently. Do the British have it just as bad? Better? Worse?

The only thing I can think of is that the UK doesn't seem to be infested with the far-right loons like one half of the American political spectrum is. None of the no-abortion-ever crowd, none of the Jesus-is-everything idiots, no climate change denial in Parliament (even the Tories are pushing for renewables). They've had civil unions for same-sex couples throughout the country for a while now and no one is trying to get laws into books banning them.

Then there is the fact that there doesn't seems to be gridlock here in spite of having a coalition government. Policies adapt and mould themselves after public debate (NHS reforms being a good example) and though not everything is a-okay, there is less blind toe-the-party line than the impression of the American system that carries across the pond.

[Big Orange]

I must say from the street level that things under Tory-Liberal rule have not changed significantly much to what it was like under Brown's tenure and their cutbacks are universally unpopular. Britain hasn't really got anything quite as vocal and widespread as the totally batshit Teabag movement - when the pro-cuts demonstrated outside Westminster under 500 gathered.

Looking in the comments section beneath Daniel Knowles' article, it seems like David Brooks has a reputation of being a chronically uninformed crank, a sort of well intentioned but inept and eccentric uncle in American media circles.

[Zaune]

David Brooks is a neocon globalist dicksucking dipshit. End stop.

Young Master Daniel Knowles of the Telegraph called him on his ignorance of Britain's recent history ( hell, Fried-brooks is pig-ignorant of nearly all things outside the shortbu... erm, the Beltway ) in this brief piece.

If being criticised from the left by the Torygraph isn't an Epic Fail, I do not know what is.

[Simon_Jester]

It may, however, be a sign that the British political system is functioning healthily.

In all seriousness, I like the idea of looking into which democratic systems are more or less working, and why, and into the matters of degree that separate well-functioning systems from poorly-functioning and non-functioning ones. That said, Brooks doesn't sound like he's the man to do it.

[whackadoodle]

As an aside,

David Brooks is a neocon globalist dicksucking dipshit. End stop.

Sorry about the discksucking crack. Re-reading my post, it didn't quite sound the way it did in my head. I meant that he sucks neocon globalist dick, not the perfectly innocent kind . To any who might be offended, my apologies.
It's just that the columnists of the Times tend to piss me off.

[Simon_Jester]

As an aside,

David Brooks is a neocon globalist dicksucking dipshit. End stop.

Sorry about the discksucking crack. Re-reading my post, it didn't quite sound the way it did in my head. I meant that he sucks neocon globalist dick, not the perfectly innocent kind . To any who might be offended, my apologies.
It's just that the columnists of the Times tend to piss me off.

Perhaps your insults need to come with parentheses to conjoin multiple words into a single phrase?

David Brooks is a (neocon globalist dick)sucking dipshit. End stop.

But, once again, I would really like to look at this issue independent of our judgment of David Brooks as a man- because it is a question that probably explains a lot about the way the developed world has evolved over the past few decades.

[thejester]

There's been a bit of debate centered around that theme in Australia recently. The commentary on the last federal election was pretty unanimous in labelling both campaigns dull, empty affairs in which spin, focus on leadership personality and absurdly micro-pork-barelling substituted for debate on policy; and these critiques usually had a bottom line that went something along the lines of 'is our democracy at risk?' That seemed to be reflected at the polls were minority parties/independents did extremely well and we were left with a hung parliament. A prime example of that was that Lindsay Tanner - who had been a stalwart of the previous government and was generally regarded as a Good Bloke - leaving politics and his seat of Melbourne falling to the Greens (their first lower house seat).

What makes that particularly interesting is that Tanner then wrote a book called Sideshow, in which he argued that the media's move to 'entertainment' was triviliasing politics and creating an environment in which the creation and implementation of long-term policy was impossible. It's an interesting book but by putting the blame pretty squarely on the media Tanner squibs it a bit. Tanner was a senior leader in a government that again, by consensus, built itself around the 24-hour news cycle (which was a new phenomenen in Australia in 2007 when that gov came to power) and as a result sent out constant streams of meaningless information to show they were doing something. When they actually faced a genuine policy challenge - the kind of thing that Tanner and all these commentators keep saying is missing from Australian politics - they totally dropped the ball, as this critique points out. And the public punished them for it.

It also gets a bit meta cause as one review points out, Tanner can't quite let go of his political instincts and so refuses to blame the electorate. As the climate change issue proves the electorate can engage on issues but I also think there's an element of contentment at work here. Australia has problems but they're not anywhere near on the same scale as those of the US and Europe - most voters are 'relaxed and comfortable' and the 'empty' politics we saw at the last election is in one sense a reflection of that. Commentators bemoaned boring policies that focused on the banal details of everyday life - ie 'cost of living expenses' - but that IMO reflects that fact that the economy is strong, health and education (while far from perfect) are sound, our wars are nice and distant and apart from the half-dozen annual frontpage pictures of dead diggers we can ignore them and illegal immigration is only an issue because of the dogwhistle politics of Tony Abbott.

Should it be like this? Probably not, there's some really, really long term issues Australia does need to address like climate change, population growth, and economy that goes beyond 'dig shit up and send it overseas'. But I suspect those sorts of policies - in a Westminster system, at any rate - almost always will come from the public service rather than the party in power.

[Coop D'etat]

. Australia has problems but they're not anywhere near on the same scale as those of the US and Europe - most voters are 'relaxed and comfortable' and the 'empty' politics we saw at the last election is in one sense a reflection of that. Commentators bemoaned boring policies that focused on the banal details of everyday life - ie 'cost of living expenses' - but that IMO reflects that fact that the economy is strong, health and education (while far from perfect) are sound, our wars are nice and distant and apart from the half-dozen annual frontpage pictures of dead diggers we can ignore them and illegal immigration is only an issue because of the dogwhistle politics of Tony Abbott.

Should it be like this? Probably not, there's some really, really long term issues Australia does need to address like climate change, population growth, and economy that goes beyond 'dig shit up and send it overseas'. But I suspect those sorts of policies - in a Westminster system, at any rate - almost always will come from the public service rather than the party in power.

I have a similar impression on Canadian politics. For the last decade or so there really hasn't been a major pressing national issue to deal with. We've ride out the recessions better than America or Europe and had the advantage of a sensible fiscal policy inherited from the 90's which allowed the business of the federal government to be slowly handing out more spending each year while gradually reducing the national debt. In a comfortable enviroment the political parties all drifted to the center and started squabbling over minutia.

To our credit, in the early nineties when the country was in full on crisis mode with: a looming possibility of a reduction of our credit rating and the possibility of debt servicing consuming the federal budget, the lingering fallout of failed attempts to renegotiate the new constitution and the potential for regional succession, our political system responded by eliminating the party in charge and to a large part responsible for the problems and electing another which managed to salvage the situation. Boring elections is sometimes a sign that things are going relatively well for a country.

[Simon_Jester]

Boring elections are fine; it's when there are millions upon millions of people with major grievances that the political system is ignoring or totally failing to address that you have a problem.

The measure of a functional political system isn't that every election is hotly contested over vitally important issues. It's that when there's something wrong, useful measures are taken to fix it in a timely fashion, while a minimum of useless measures that make the problem worse are taken.

To measure that, of course, you probably have to average over time, not just take snapshots, but you see what I mean.

[Big Orange]

It seems a democratic government is not functioning properly when the same or similar unpopular economic policies continued with and the same problems are seemingly unaddressed, no matter who ever is in charge. The UK tabloids bang on about the same things that they have today to when Labour was in charge. But one thing that's noticebly absent for the better in UK politics is the blind religious fanaticism and militant homophobia that was getting old in the 1960s. But many UK politicians are still swallowing the same Neo-Liberal Crapitalism crap (though it seems less cancerous than in Congress).

[Starglider]

It seems a democratic government is not functioning properly when the same or similar unpopular economic policies continued with and the same problems are seemingly unaddressed, no matter who ever is in charge.

The same could be said about pretty much every country. Implementing actual change in politics is hard, and even when you do most of the population will probably hate you for it (see: Margret Thatcher).

But many UK politicians are still swallowing the same Neo-Liberal Crapitalism crap (though it seems less cancerous than in Congress).

In the last twenty years the UK public sector has steadily expanded from 39% of the economy to 47% of the economy. Almost half of UK economic activity is controlled by government dictat, not individual choice. Regardless of the merit of neo-liberal economics, this does not constitute neo-liberal policies by any sane standard. What little liberalisation has occured has been trivial by comparison and mostly ill-advised favoritism to special interest groups.

[Elfdart]

Aside from Brooks' stupidity and his fetish for wanting to be an elder in The Village, he's not the only one who has a "grass is always greener on the other side" mentality. For those Americans who pay any attention to UK politics, British elections seem unusually clean, orderly -almost quaint. They are nothing like the freak show that is the typical American election.