In the midst of an otherwise interesting and thoughtful piece arguing that David Cameron is “retreating” from his “radical” start, Ben Brogan lobs in this astonishing paragraph:
The thrust of Brogan’s article is, I think (though I may be mistaken), that a retreat (as he defines* it) from radicalism is disappointing. This paragraph, however, is straight from the John McCain School of Statesmanship. Fret not whether a policy is sensible or prudent, feel the decisiveness!Even on issues on which he has not found such obvious consensus, Mr Cameron has shown himself willing to take risks when politics would dictate prudence. Take Libya, where he led the international debate by being among the first to urge some kind of UN-approved action against Muammar Gaddafi. Events since have largely vindicated those who cautioned against the peril of a drawn-out, costly and unsustainable entanglement. But his critics recognised the confident way the Prime Minister defied American doubts and navigated Arab suspicions to produce a consensus for intervention. Again, here was an instance of swift-footed decisiveness.
Risks are good and so is “leading” any international debate (it does not matter where you lead it). Confidence is crucial and “defying” the Americans even better. “Swift-footed decisiveness” is all important; judgement and wisdom be damned. Even if you blunder, at least blunder in the correct fashion: strongly. Emotion trumps all and superficial perceptions of leadership are apparently more important than actually making the right decision. Being seen to act in the right “Prime Ministerial” way is evidently as important as acting in a properly Prime Ministerial fashion. Outcomes don’t seem to matter as much as you might think they should.
Perhaps I’m being unfair to Brogan. As I say, much of the rest of his piece is penetrating and interesting. You should read it! In its own way and perhaps accidentally, this paragraph also highlights one of the governments weaknesses: its lack of process. That’s not sexy and not the kind of thing that tends to excite many people who aren’t civil servants, but controlling process – and ensuring it is sufficiently rigorous – is a vital part of government. Sadly it’s also something that has to be learned on the job. But better command of process might have avoided some of the blunders that have hampered the government’s ability to project itself as confident, reforming and competent. From the forestry sale to tuition fees via the mess of the NHS reforms, a more rigorous process might have produced better results. As it might on Libya too.
*About which more in due course.
Comments