I know I am piling on here, but I can't resist taking my own shot at the latest idiocy from Patio Man. I remain astonished by the degree to which Brooks manages to be well respected in so many circles when, in fact, he basically routinely pulls stuff out of his ass in the most slipshod fashion. He is an historical illiterate with precious little regard for the truth.
Today's travesty is the notion that the British political system functions better than that of the U.S. basically because its political elite come from the same place (London)** go to the same private schools together, and have some kind of bipartisan affinity for one another as a result. What utter bollocks.
The British system of government functions better than its American counterpart -- in the sense that British politicians can get shit done -- for the simple reason that it is a parliamentary system with for all intents and purposes a unicameral legislature in which strong party discipline prevails. There is no executive to veto legislation and the courts have much more limited powers than does the U.S. Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, it matters not what British M.P.s think about their counterparts across the floor because 1) they never need their votes to pass legislation; and 2) their opponents cannot obstruct them. Thus, David Cameron can enact foolish and counterproductive austerity moves and there is nothing the Labour Party can do about it, until such time as Cameron must call an election or he loses a vote of no confidence -- i.e. the Liberal Democrats actually remember what they used to stand for.
Now I am all for this kind of system, where elections have direct consequences and the party in power can enact its agenda and the electorate can judge whether they like the results.
One would think, however, that a "small c" conservative as Brooks purports to be would find this kind of streamlined governance to be dangerous -- after all, a party which garners roughly 40% of the vote as the Tories did, can nonetheless ram their program through without obstruction, no matter how radical or ill-considered.
Brooks is in love with an illusion that England has a system in which the well bred and educated work together from some sort of consensus on governance. This seems to me to be a fantasy of his own making. As for it being a more civil political society, I seem to recall a parliamentary debate from back in the Thatcher era in which a Labour MP repeatedly shouted "you stupid woman" at her over and over again. Again, I liked it, but it didn't seem terribly civil.
Basically Brooks is voicing his contempt for democracy in this piece. Now I am not at all a romantic when it comes to the wisdom of the American electorate -- its deficiencies are manifest. But I am even less impressed with the governing wisdom of America's elite punditry, who strike me as people with very little in the way of either policy expertise or working knowledge of the reality faced daily by most Americans. People who believe it would be beneficial to raise the Social Security retirement age or eliminate Medicare as we know it or who think that Paul Ryan is a profile in courage or that deficits matter more than unemployment, really aren't the folks I want in charge of decision making. I would rather go about the hard work of persuading the public writ large about why all of the above are erroneous policies than entrust the likes of Brooks or Thomas Friedman to make decisions.
*A reference to a show that was on radio before I was born.
**With a metropolitan population of between 12 and 14 million people, greater London contains nearly 25% of England's 50 million people, and roughly 20% of the population of the entire United Kingdom. By contrast, the largest metropolitan area in the U.S., New York City and vicinity, has roughly 19 million people and constitutes about 6% of our continental nation's 311 million people. Geographically, England is about the size of Louisiana, and the entire United Kingdom about the size of Michigan.
