To the Editor:
D
avid Brady’s question is timely and his philosophical approach is sound. Political deadlock may well be the root cause of much of America’s civic malaise, and a comparative institutional approach to the political process might present practical solutions [“Westminster, D.C.?” September]. However, the specifics of his argument are fallacious. I do not necessarily disagree with his conclusion that a parliamentary system would not serve America well. But by attacking only straw men, he misses the opportunity to learn from other political systems and to explore some more incremental reforms that might improve governance here.

The most egregious example of bad science in this article is its use of economic data. There are at least two distinct and fatal logical flaws here. The first is hasty generalization. One cannot simply compare the values of a few post-crisis economic indicators from the U.S. with those from select parliamentary democracies and conclude that presidential systems produce better economic outcomes. Many other factors are involved and the data set is tiny. Only at the margins does government responsiveness matter here—variables are mostly determined by long-run underlying structural factors such as taxation, regulation, market flexibility, and national culture. Indeed, it is easy to argue that hyperactive government is an impediment to recovery. Commentary readers no doubt recall the non-event that was the sequester.

The second problem is cherry-picking. Table 1 compares the U.S. to the eurozone. The euro currency, and the associated fiscal policies that go with membership, is now widely acknowledged to be the policy responsible for the eurozone’s continued depression. Mr. Brady has selected as his counterexample a set of countries that share a substantial handicap unrelated to the use of parliamentary systems. Indeed, use of the euro is the policy of the EU, which has no less than five presidents. If Mr. Brady had compared the U.S. to a set of parliamentary countries with fewer underlying differences from America—say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK—he would have found no support for his contention.

Mr. Brady wonders, “Would the country swing back and forth between the two policies [on abortion] depending upon which party was in office?” The answer is, of course, no. Mr. Brady tells us why himself, in the same paragraph: “80 percent of the country would vote against both of these two stark alternatives.” He imagines that both parties would maintain their current extreme position after the introduction of a parliamentary system. He fails to realize that these positions are the result of the current system. In parliamentary democracies, particularly under first-past-the-post voting as in the UK, the prospective governments have to submit to the electorate their actual policies prior to election, knowing they will be held accountable for implementing them. Party manifestos therefore have to appeal to the center, not the base. Indeed, the common complaint in the UK is that the two major parties are too alike on a host of issues. This is unsurprising when one considers they are competing for the same votes.
Wholesale transition to parliamentary democracy is clearly not on the agenda in the U.S. However, by failing to properly appreciate the relative merits of each system, we lose the opportunities for all those Western countries struggling to rejuvenate both their demos and their democracy to learn from one another.
Matthew Moore
New York City

To the Editor:
I
n his clear and honest analysis, David Brady finds that the American system can work better than parliamentary systems. Our Founding Fathers avoided many European problems of government.

I would add to Mr. Brady’s critique by challenging the claim that there is more reform in parliamentary systems. France and Italy cannot seem to reform their systems. And the European Union in general still won’t recognize the menace of radical Islam.

Additionally, there is something beneficial in our “obstruction.” Mr. Brady is correct that the freer U.S. system helped economic growth more than Europe’s parliaments did. Unfortunately, our economy is often hobbled by the Democrats, sometimes illegally. At least the GOP was able to “obstruct” some parts of the Democrats’ counter-productive agenda.

The Democrats, for their part, have blocked many GOP-sponsored policies. During George W. Bush’s last years in office, the Democratic congressional majority repeatedly blocked his proposals and nominations.
Richard H. Shulman
New York City