David Brooks On Our Unreasonable Expectations of Governments

David Brooks always has a knack for grasping the social conscience on an issue, and telling us how wrong we are collectively to think the way we do on it. This time, he hits the spot again by criticizing the way public opinion responded to the Christmas Eve bombing attempt by holding its government responsible for failing to prevent it. But, Mr. Brooks, there's two things I'd like to correct.

First, I disagree that we had a more mature attitude towards government 50 years ago, that "there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed" and that sometimes, the proverbial crap will hit the fan despite our leader's best efforts.

In fact, our unreasonable attitude holding our rulers responsible for things they really aren't in control of is as old as civilization. The Ancient Egyptians held their Pharaohs responsible for the bad crops they got despite the futile but expensive efforts of the Pharaoh and his priests to carry out religious rituals aimed at influencing the gods of good weather. We didn't have a temporary moment of reason 50 years ago either if the situation in the UK was an example. After winning the war for the Britons, Churchill was voted out of office because of a bad economy and a lack of social welfare measures. He couldn't help it; his country was broke.

Second, Brooks is right that a greater centralization is at the source of a wider range of expectations upon the government. But, excuse me for nitpicking, but the process of centralization didn't really start 50 years ago, but 220 years ago with the French Revolution. The social unrest of the 19th century, the industrialization process, and the keynesianist-welfare state of the 20th century further enhanced the historic demands on government to increase their scope of control as well as the redevance they have to citizens.