The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Uncensored views of the US from parliament

by Harlan Ullman, opinion contributor - 06/12/23 12:30 PM ET

An illumination, right, of part of a message reading "Happy Birthday Big Ben, 150 years, 1859-2009" is seen projected on the Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster in London to celebrate Big Ben's 150th anniversary, Saturday, July 11, 2009. The booming bell first pealed on July 11, 1859, a few weeks after the clock in the famous tower above the Houses of Parliament began keeping time.(AP Photo/Sang Tan) — An illumination, right, of part of a message reading “Happy Birthday Big Ben, 150 years, 1859-2009” is seen projected on the Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster in London to celebrate Big Ben’s 150th anniversary, Saturday, July 11, 2009. The booming bell first pealed on July 11, 1859, a few weeks after the clock in the famous tower above the Houses of Parliament began keeping time.(AP Photo/Sang Tan)

Since at least World War II, the United Kingdom has been the United States’s closest ally. But to draw from the Broadway and movie hit “Music Man,” there is trouble in River City. Except in this case, River City consists of Britain’s two Houses of Parliament: the Lords and the Commons.

The Lords is an institution unique to Britain. While the Commons has 650 members elected by popular vote at least every five years, or more frequently if the ruling party so deems, the Lords consists of 776 sitting members, none elected. Ninety-one of some 800 hereditary peers, whose titles are handed down from generation to generation, are in the Lords along with 26 bishops. The remaining members are life peers appointed for distinguished service, experience, expertise and independent judgment.

The Lords serves as a revising chamber that scrutinizes and amends legislation proposed by the Commons. But it has no final say on approval. Yet, because of its makeup and character, it has influence and respect, despite the advanced age of some of its members.

Thus, when given the opportunity to meet with a number of peers and members of the Commons, understanding their concerns and questions is important, especially when the cogency and legitimacy of the U.S. political system are being challenged by both Houses. The most daunting and overarching fear among these parliamentarians is whether the U.S. is capable of leading the international system and indeed of self-governing.

Underpinning this lack of confidence is the low standing in which the two leading presidential candidates — President Biden and former President Trump — as well as Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, are perceived.

To all but a few parliamentarians with whom I have met, Trump is unacceptable; Biden is too old; and Harris would be a disaster. Polls reinforce these opinions in that a majority of Americans prefer different presidential choices, especially Democrats, most of whom do not want Biden to run. But that is not the same as asking if the U.S. political system actually works anymore. The farce over the debt ceiling debate was cited as but one of many examples of systemic failure.

On China, members don’t understand why the U.S. and the Biden administration are obsessed with China at the expense of Europe. They wonder why the U.S. is seemingly preparing for, or at least, headed for, a possible war with China over Taiwan. In fact, if the U.S. were serious about improving relations with China, parliamentarians asked, why weren’t sanctions removed from People’s Liberation Army General Li Shangfu so he could meet with his U.S. opposite Lloyd Austin in Singapore in advance of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s pending visit to Beijing?

About Russia’s invasion, it is unclear to many of these members why the U.S. has been relatively slow in supporting Ukraine. Further, if negotiations are the only way to end the war on terms acceptable to Ukraine, how can diplomacy be conducted with a war criminal — Russia’s President Vladimir Putin? Clarity about ending the war is lacking. And allowing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to determine those terms on his own does not garner any confidence.

Given the wholesale turnover of five prime ministers in six years, from David Cameron to Rishi Sunak, the British see their own political system in some degree of turmoil. Yet, compared with America’s system, there is less pessimism that the U.K. will not muddle through. Those words are carefully chosen, meaning that doubts about America’s politics are serious. Whether America will muddle through is no longer a hypothetical question.

Put another way, those members of parliament with whom I spoke seem to be in agreement that the question of our time is not whether democracies or autocracies will prevail. Instead, the politer inference is asking why America doesn’t get on with better governing of itself. In that regard, there is upset over protectionist economic policies the Biden administration has set that hinder free and fair trade and rankle our European allies and trading partners.

Prime Minister Sunak’s visit to Washington was well-managed. However, no breakthroughs seem to have arisen. Is this business as usual? A prior practice that may no longer work?

The answer to these questions may be that there will be no change unless the U.S. is prepared to reactivate the special relationship with Britain and take it seriously. Parliamentary concerns over America will fester. That helps no one.

Harlan Ullman Ph.D. is a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the prime author of the “shock and awe” doctrine. His 12th book, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large,” is available on Amazon. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.