The Irresponsible Government Model
The Epstein fallout highlights differences in the US and UK systems.
Over the last few days, I’ve come across several pieces noting that the recent Epstein files releases seem to have had much more real consequences in Europe, and particularly in the UK, than they have here in the US. I would have skipped The Atlantic‘s Idrees Kahloon‘s version, with the absurd headline “British Politicians Still Have Shame,” had Taegan Goddard not highlighted this:
There is an irony to the undying Jeffrey Epstein scandal: It may never be more than an annoyance for President Trump, who knew Epstein well, but it could topple British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who never met the sex-offender financier. Starmer has a 71 percent disapproval rating and leads the least popular British government since World War II. The reasons for the Labour Party leader’s deepening plight are moral, because decency and shame still matter in British politics. But they are also institutional. An American president is less democratically accountable than the British prime minister, because partisanship has disabled the checks that the Founders placed on the chief executive.
I dismiss out of hand the notion that the Brits care more about “decency” than we do. American politicians have their careers ruined by sex scandals that are much less shocking than Epstein’s all the time. So, no, shame is not the key variable.
Kahloon’s point about institutional dynamics, on the other hand, is spot on.
You would think that the British prime minister—who definitionally has a parliamentary majority behind him in a country in which Parliament is supreme—would be able to behave more like an elected monarch than the American president, who is supposed to be constrained by checks and balances. In the modern day, the opposite looks to be true. Parliamentary systems encourage palace coups because if you remove your party’s leader, you might be able to claim the job. If you successfully impeach and remove the American president, though, you don’t get to succeed him. The ever-present possibility of a no-confidence motion is supposed to keep a prime minister democratically accountable; impeachment is designed to be used in extreme cases. But its repeated use in recent decades—once against Bill Clinton, and twice against Trump—has proved its futility as a meaningful check on the president. In a time of closely divided and extremely partisan Congresses, the chance of a successful conviction in the Senate is close to zero—even if the president does something like try to stay in office after losing an election.
I’m not sure that three impeachment attempts over the span of decades constitute overuse. But, yes, we have seen that it is next to impossible to get a significant number of Senators from the President’s party to vote to remove him from office.* Indeed, none did in the Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton impeachments.
Nor do I think the prospect of a “palace coup” explains why it’s easier to oust a British premier. Rather, it’s because the Westminster system is one of party government. While the party leader is certainly the face of the (very short) UK election campaign, citizens are voting for Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Reform, and other party platforms. Shedding a PM embroiled in a scandal—or simply one with sagging poll numbers—can be good for the party.
When Margaret Thatcher became unpopular after almost 12 years in office, pushing her aside for John Major would extend Tory governance for another six years. Ousting Tony Blair (10 years) for Gordon Brown gave Labor almost three more years. More recently, the Conservatives held on to power by David Cameron (6 years) handing off to Theresa May (3 years), Boris Johnson (3 years), Liz Truss (50 days!), and finally Rishi Sunak (just under 2 years). Indeed, in every instance except the Blair-Brown switch, the party won another mandate.
By contrast, American Presidents spend years campaigning for their party nomination and then months running against the other party’s nominee for the White House. Removing one is therefore much more drastic, as it effectively overturns an election.**
Kahloon is also correct to note that our system does not work as advertised.
Congress has, over the past half century, also turned over more and more of its authority to the personal discretion of the president and the executive branch. When Thomas Jefferson was writing on the demerits of parliamentary government, he observed that “an elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits.” When there is no separation of powers, but merely a separation of parties, this intricate system breaks down, leaving an imperial presidency with exactly the concentrated power that the Founders feared.
The irony is that the UK model has the opposite of separation of powers: a fusion of powers. While we call it a parliamentary system, it’s really a cabinet model in which the PM and senior party leaders govern, with the rest of the party’s parliamentary membership acting as a rubber stamp. So long, that is, as the government retains the confidence of said membership.
In the vision Hamilton, Madison, and Jay sold us in the Federalist, the US system is quite different. The President is independently elected and represents the interests of the nation as a whole; Senators represent the interests of their states; and Representatives represent those of their local districts. And, to some extent, that remained true well into my memory of the system’s functioning. As the parties have sorted geographically and ideologically, though, they are much more nationalized and cohesive. Republican Members, especially, see their fortunes tied to Trump.
The British model is often called “responsible government” because it allows much greater accountability. Not only can parliament hold ministers to task, up to and including removing them from office, but the public knows which party to hold responsible in the next election. Historically, that has been a challenge in our diffuse system, because Presidents can blame Congress — and often the opposition party in Congress — for failures. More recently, though, even local elections have become referenda on presidential performance.
Kahloon is also right here:
They might also be saddened that 250 years after declaring independence from a tyrannical British king, the American system of government has arguably less democratic accountability for its leaders than the British one. But perhaps they would not be entirely shocked: The idea that there was something intrinsic to America that immunized it from autocracy was anticipated and deemed not credible. “Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic,” Jefferson wrote, adding, “The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us.”
There’s simply no doubt that the current British system is more democratically representative than ours. Indeed, while Steven Taylor and I are very much on the same side on the “We’re a Republic, not a democracy” argument, ours was inherently undemocratic in design. Even aside from the fact that Senators weren’t chosen directly by the people until the 17th Amendment (1913) and Presidents are still elected by the indirect Electoral College, the disproportionate weighting of the Senate (and thus Electoral College) means some citizens’ votes matter considerably more than others.*** And don’t even get me started on the filibuster, blue slips, and other undemocratic mechanisms in the Senate.
Still, it was supposed to represent local and institutional interests and prevent the concentration of power. The Framers could not have envisioned anything like the national security state that arose with World War II and then the Cold War. Or the nationalized information environment created by radio and amplified by television and the Internet. The Presidency has gotten steadily more powerful and Congress less able and interested in checking that power. And Trump has shown the degree to which what little constraint remained was mostly a function of his predecessors feeling bound by norms.
*It’s also worth pointing out that there were arguments that the infractions in the Clinton and first Trump impeachment actually didn’t warrant removal from office. And, by the time the third Trump impeachment happened, he was a week from being out of office, so voting against removal was easier to rationalize.
**We saw this pretty clearly in 2024, when Joe Biden merely effectively handed the Democratic nomination to his Vice President. While Kamala Harris was duly elected to that office, few people actually base their vote on the bottom of the ticket. Those who had voted for Biden in the primary rightly felt that they had been disenfranchised, even though they technically voted for Harris as his replacement.
***And, of course, the original design embraced slavery and denied the vote to everyone but White men over 21.
Nixon resigned because he was threatened with being impeached.
Hungary and Israel are parliamentary systems. The latter even has proportional representation.
Even though, for a variety of reasons I think parliamentary systems are superior to presidential ones, I am not under any illusion that any system is immune to extreme corruption or authoritarian takeover.
@charontwo:
It wasn’t an idle threat. He was told by party leaders behind closed doors that they had the votes not only to impeach him but to remove him. That was probably the closest we ever came to removing a sitting US president.
It’s worth noting that the vote to remove Andrew Johnson failed by just one vote. Now, some years ago I read an essay which argued that he was not as close to being removed as the one-vote margin suggested, because several Senators were told they wouldn’t have to vote against conviction if there were just enough votes to prevent it. I don’t know how accurate that take is, but it does fit the way Congress often does business today, where “narrow” votes aren’t as narrow as they look, because leaders of parties or factions will arrange things so that a vote narrowly succeeds, allowing vulnerable members to avoid a controversial vote that could hurt them.
@charontwo: @Kylopod: It was a time of markedly lower party sorting, though. Quite a few Southern Democrats would have sustained him in office, while quite a few Northern and Western Republicans would have voted to oust him.
@Kylopod: But that was in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, when many Southern states’ Senate delegations hadn’t even been seated. Republicans had 57 seats and Johnson’s Democrats only 9.
Funny, I didn’t see your post until after I had posted mine, but for different reasons, I, too, noted the advantages of parliamentary systems!
@Kylopod:
No human system is immune to corruption.
But some have better safeguards than do others.
Unserious avoidance.
But the question isn’t about any ole backbencher, it’s about the head of government.
If like Trump, Starmer were a Roy Cohn (gag, puke) protégé who agreed it’s okay to call his daughter “a piece of ass,” praised his his “terrific guy” 15-year buddy Epstein for preferring women “on the younger side,” had Epstein be recorded calling them best friends, lamented not being able to date his then-underage daughter because “she’s got the best body,” or possibly wondered if it’s okay “to be more attracted to your daughter than your wife,” bragged about harrassing naked teen pageant contestants, gloated about grabbing the “p*ssy” of other men’s significant others, been found liable for rape, or been accused of some form of assault by 30+ women, then neither the British people nor his parliamentary colleagues would’ve tolerated a 21st century Starmer premiership.
And yet modern America rewarded Trump with the Republican nod three times and the presidency twice. Ew.
I highlight Trump’s disgusting patholgical pederasty on the daily because it’s prima facie disqualifying piled upon his countless other vile acts and traits.
But even here at OTB Trump’s Epstein-tinged perversions have been dismissed by commentors as so much noise. Yes, this evidences the US’s ethical decompensation, helping a dirtbag who mocked a disabled reporter win 270+ electoral votes.
But it’s easier to blame it all on structure and systems alone (therapy patients love trying this), waving away Americans’ personal responsibility for the spiritual sicknessness infecting so many, especially targeting our boys. No it’s not absurd to admit it’s not either/or, it’s both/and.
Postwar Germans had difficult discussions about the inhumanity in the Deutsch consciousness. It was a must. Americans are deluding ourselves to think we should just skip past MAGA carefree, without any moral reckoning.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I agree. I just don’t think it comes down to parliamentary vs. presidential. The Knesset seems perpetually unable to get rid of Bibi for decades, even though in theory they could do so at any time. And the way Trump has utilized the system to make himself practically untouchable is due much more to his gradually stacking the system with loyalists (that’s where the Orban comparison is most apt) than to the structural barriers to removing a president in the middle of a term. As noted earlier in the thread, Nixon was essentially forced out, for crimes that pale in comparison to what Trump does out in the open every day.
@DK:
I don’t think OTB commenters have glossed over/dismissed Trump’s revolting perversions as “so much noise.” The man’s a disgusting churl. All the regulars have said that, or words to that effect, numerous times.
@DK:
Wish I could upvote this more than once.
@DK: I think Trump is sui generis, albeit very much tied to our institutional structures.
As hyperpolarized as we are, Alabama, which hasn’t voted for the Republican nominee by less than 60 points in a quarter century and last went blue in 1976, rejected Roy Moore for the Senate (granted, narrowly) on credible allegations that he had romantically pursued teenagers when he was in his 30s.
I don’t think literally any other candidate could have survived the “Grab ’em by the pussy” business or any other number of signs of creepiness that Trump has. There’s something of a cult of personality that lets him get away with it. And that seems too render most Republicans in Congress spineless.
Otherwise, we really haven’t had a sex scandal touch a President since the Lewinsky affair, almost 30 years ago now. Clinton was, of course, impeached for that.
@DK:
How much damage has DOGE done?
RFK Jr?
How many boats has Hegseth blown out of the water?
What’s it like in the detention prisons Kristi Noem’s DHS is operating?
However much harm Epstein’s activities perpetrated is a rounding error compared to any of the above.
@CSK: Not all. But yes, there’s been multiple times when I brought up Trump’s disgusting Epstein-tinged pedophilia and had certain commenters respond by essentially saying it was a big nothingburger. No, I’m not making that up.
And quite frankly, I should not be the only person consistently bringing it up and harping on the subject. In a country where decency mattered, I would not be.
@charontwo:
Right on cue lol
One, it’s not a competition. Americans should be upset about all the above. Not that I’ve seen any commenter here or many elsewheres up in arms about the millions set to suffer or die from DOGE cuts.
Two, intentionally or unintentionally dismissing the rape of children as a “rounding error” is a exactly the problem with Americans’ blinkered morals. This is exactly the dismissive attitude I’ve encountered here and elsewhere. Proving Dr. Joyner’s faith in Americans’ fealty decency misplaced. Don’t see the deflecting from The Prince Formerly Known As Andrew’s Epstein troubles with, “It’s a rounding error compared to the consequences of British Empire colonialism.
And? So what? What are such comparisons supposed to mean? Answer: that relatively, it’s NBD that powerful men helped Epstein abuse kids. That’s why they are sliding here in the US and do not in the UK, where such comparisons are rightly viewed as absurd, amoral, and irrelevant.
I’ve often said Trump’s child abuse is the second or third worst thing he’s done after his role in ensuring COVID spread from China and his Jan 6 terror attack (which people here and elsewhere still refuse to call recognize as a terror attack because the terrorists were white, another example of a non-structural social/cultural problem explaining why white nationalists occupy the White House). Does my subjective and irrelevant ranking prevent me from regularly registering disgust that the president is a pedo? No.
No ln sequitur comparisons are no excuse for Americans’ yawning indifference to Trump’s litany of underage sex crimes. The indifference and dismissiveness shows country in unfortunate ethical decay.
@James Joyner:
Of course you’re right. Partly because folks like Joe Rogan or Jake Paul don’t want to run (knock on wood) while Elon Musk constutionally can’t. Otherwise, we’d be shocked all over again what our grievancemongers can get away with.
Americans can’t be let off the hook because Trump is unique. Hitler had unique charisma and persuasive powers, but shellshocked Germans still needed a Kommzujesus about their social scruples, because there’s certain things no one should be able to get away with.
Incidentally, DOGE cuts may help cause 9-14 million deaths worldwide over the next several years, on top of the global COVID carnage that not coincidentally followed Trump 1.0’s CDC China cuts. I think late 21st century historians will not find Mao/Stalin/Hitler comparisons as hyperbolic or inappropriate for the Trump-Musk-Putin cabal as many do today.
A lot of Starmer’s problems re Mandelson and hance Mandalso-Epstein stem from Starmer and his Cabine’s specific political failings.
Starmer apperas to dislike, and simply not be very good at, party-management politics, or at getting a frip on key government policy issues, or on clearly presenting strategic policy to either public or Parliament.
Failing at one or two of these is sub-optimal, but manageable.
Failing at all three is asking for trouble.
Satrmers seems to prefer acting like a Chairman rather than a CEO: setting up the personnel and stuctrures, and assuming effective policy will magically pop-out to the process.
For instance, re Mandelson he seems to have simply left the entire thing in the hands of his Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, despite the indications that Mandelson had not been candid about his dissocaition from Epstein, and obvious potential of the whole thing to detonate.
And McSweeney bolloxed it up.
Starmer might be able to get away with his “semi-detatched” approach if other members of the Cabinet and “advisoers” could fill in regarding the three big issues of directing key policies, shmoozing MPS’s, and communicating strategic objectives.
But none of them seem up to the job either.
@Kylopod:
@Steven L. Taylor:
For safeguards to work, there needs to be the will to implement them. There’s plenty the spineless Republiqans could do to reign in El Taco, but they choose not to.
The last time they opposed him, was the matter of rejecting Gatze for AG. They could, and should, have rejected Hestegh and Jr. as well. One is shaping the armed forces into a cartoonish version of an action movie, the other is killing people with crackpot ideas on top of being an antivaxxer.
@Kathy: I get the point.
But I would also note that from Plato through Aristotle to Madison to now, we know that at least part of the answer to how to get good political outcomes depends at least in part on structures.
I understand that any conversation in which I or others point to structures that I am going to get the “Yeah, but, it isn’t a guarantee.”
But, of course, eating right, exercising, getting enough sleep, etc doesn’t guarantee a long, healthy life, but it does increase one’s odds.
@Kylopod:
I suppose it depends on what “comes down to” means. There is little doubt in my mind (and not just in my mind, I would hasten to add) that incentive structures in those two systems are quite different–far more different than most Americans appreciate. The fact that the Israeli system hasn’t jettisoned Bibi doesn’t prove much of anything.
Please note: I am not claiming that parliamentary systems automatically and always solve problems like Trump. It does remain true that it would be easier to oust Bibi than it currently is to oust Trump. That there is insufficient will to do so does not change that empirical fact.
The work of Juan Linz and Guillermo O’Donnell (to pick two off the top of my head) identified a lot of the problems with presidentialism that we are seeing in the US at this present moment. Samuels and Shugart’s book (Prime Ministers, Parties, and Presidents) does a good job of detailing how parties behave differently in those two systems.
I have written about how partisan ties across the branches have short-circuited Madisonian checks and balances multiple times here at the site.
I mean, sure, it isn’t just about the relationship between legislatures, executives, and the way parties shape those relationships (and are shaped by them), but those are extremely important factors that shape politics and government (and things like accountability and representation).
The bottom line remains this: there is no incentive inherent in our system for the party to hold its president accountable, not in an era of ideologically sorted parties and high polarization. As I have written about before, the party system in the early 1970s was not the one we have now (not to mention the changes to the media environment and the mechanism to nominate presidential candidates).
I would further argue that most cabinets are pretty loyal in ways that are relevant to this conversation, as are partisan majorities.
@Steven L. Taylor:
And I get your point.
The problem is people will always be part of the safeguard process, it can’t be otherwise.
I was going to expound more on this, but Hell Week resurgence got in the way. I may do it later in the week in the open forum.
@Kathy:
This is undeniably true.
And of the things that history (and daily life) teaches us is that relying on people to “do the right thing” is not the best way to conduct, well, anything.
We don’t just tell people: go drive, we try to construct roads and rules to mitigate against accidents and traffic. The way the roads and rules are designed affects outcomes.
I 100% understand people are involved in politics. The goal is to try to incentivize the behaviors we want, knowing that most of them won’t behave the way we want without such strictures.