Further, he said, it’s important “to be clear what PMQs is not. It is not forensic. It is not a fact-finding exercise.” (In this he distinguished it from question time with lower-ranking ministers, which is much less adversarial and can be “quite informative.”) And while Hennessy says he couldn’t imagine the British system without question time, Kettle said he does not “think many people would say Britain has better government because of the way that the Prime Minister’s questions operates”—or, for that matter, that Britain has much to brag about at all in terms of government accountability. In fact, while America cribs ideas from the U.K., Kettle, who spent four years as the Guardian’s bureau chief in Washington, now looks back longingly at the oversight authority that can be wielded by congressional committees in the U.S.
That point—about the means for debate, oversight, and engagement that we already have at our disposal—goes to the second issue: whether it makes sense to develop a “question time” equivalent in the U.S. As the political scientist and blogger Jon Bernstein wrote this week, the value of question time in Britain is that the parliamentary system affords very few other tools to the minority party, or even back-benchers of the majority party, to influence political decision-making. As the health care debate has shown, that is not a problem for the U.S. As Bernstein notes, “in Congress, the minority has real opportunities”—and, along with it, a real responsibility—to help make policy. What we need, he writes, is not question time but more presidential press conferences (which have been “sadly neglected” by Obama) and more press attention to meaningful Congressional hearings.
Structure and institutions matter a tremendous amount in politics; more, in fact, than the press is often willing to recognize. But in this case, the eagerness to adopt a foreign institution may be a way to avoid recognizing that the tools for a better politics are in our hands, if only we would choose to use them. “It all goes to show,” Kettle said, “that the grass always seems greener in the other guy’s garden, I suppose.”

Thanks to CJR for expressing skepticism of this brainstorm. Prime Minister's Question Time is good theater, not much more. It would favor glibness, a skill by which lawyers, academics and media people set high store, but often used in the service of guilty felons, silly research papers, and bad journalism. I can imagine that John Edwards, a trial lawyer, would have done well in such a venue.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 12:36 PM
Today's NY Times has an article on just this point but only to the fact that Obama wasn't/hasn't giving reporters time for Q&A for at least 7 months. He has done many more one-on-one interviews with various reporters esp. for TV. For me this is all well and good to a point. Some like myself don't listen to TV news much, esp. not interviews that go on and on about things I have already read about elsewhere. But many Americans don't take time to read--anything!! Then also Obama really hasn't had anything NEW to tell the reporters since the middle of the Health Bill. It's all been Congress's messing up of various items--half truths and lies. As many have said a lot of business will NEVER get done by Congress if it finds itself on camera. On camera they say one thing and then turn to the reporters and give some odd talking points and then if they happen to be in their home state they say what they think their constituents want to hear. Much of this is what Obama called them out on with his speech last week. Obama has little patience with many of the shenanighans that Congress members pull but he has and does call some of them on their most outrageous ones. Gibbs gives many specifics in his daily report to reporters but most TV--C-SPAN included only show them if the topic is lively for one reason or another. I do wish that the rule for filibusters was still the need to stand in the senate and TALK!!! If the little old guys in the 19th C could do it, so can our young and not-so young members do it. It would cut back on its overuse. Both DC and CA need to return to simple majorities plus one. 60 or 67 of 100 is ridiculous. Have a good weekend!
#2 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 08:08 PM