A Call to ORDER! A (Non-Controversial) Suggestion to Save Our Democracy Katie Phang Oct 21 We here at Law and Disorder are not always doom and gloom. Sometimes we can make a serious point while having fun with it. Today is such a day. One of my constant laments is the threat that Convicted Felon Donald Trump poses to our democracy. Team Bootlicker — aka the Republican members of Congress and others in Trump’s Administration — have bent the knee. Some have done so out of fear that doing anything that remotely pisses off Trump will result in an online bullying session they do not have the testicular fortitude to handle. While this is happening, a majority of the Supreme Court is hellbent on testing the limits of the idea: “Can Trump Really Screw It All Up?” Bottomline, we are living in the “against stupidity we have no defense” era. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Faced with this threat, I humbly offer a first-step solution. One of the great spectacles of modern democracy takes place in London every Wednesday at noon. It’s at that time the political equivalent of a bare knuckles fight takes place in the House of Commons: Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). The green benches in chamber fill up to the brim and the Prime Minister stands alone at a despatch box[i] facing questions from his colleagues, backbenchers included. Of particular import, the leader of the opposition gets the opportunity to lob political grenades — in the form of six questions — to the Prime Minister. And those grenades are designed to punish. You may have seen videos of PMQs from time to time. What’s usually memorable is that the room is raucous; not a moment goes by without shouting, mock laughter, or a collective guttural moan of disapproval from the opposition. In short, PMQs visualize the idea that power must defend itself in real-time and in full public view. Or put more bluntly, the Prime Minister must convince others he is not a card-carrying member of the galactically stupid on a weekly basis. PMQs have existed in some form for over a century. They became globally recognizable in the 1980s due to a combination of Margaret “The Iron Lady” Thatcher’s mastery of the circus that is PMQs and the onslaught of 24-hour news coverage. Most importantly, PMQs have made and broken political careers. Here are just a few examples: 1. Thatcher vs. Everyone Thatcher’s tenure at the despatch box can be described as a combination of conviction, sarcasm, and verbal mastery of her positions. When the opposition accused her of being out of touch with the working class, she lowered the boom: 2. Tony Blair vs. John Major Tony Blair’s rise to the premiership coincided with the separate rise of PMQs as televised theater. Blair — in the opposition at the time — was the British analog to Bill Clinton: youthful, charismatic, and a master of messaging. John Major, the then-Prime Minister, was anything but that. The result? One of Blair’s most memorable political moments: 3. Gordon Brown vs. David Cameron Well-intentioned Gordon Brown is proof positive that PMQs can end careers. Brown’s adversary, opposition leader David Cameron, routinely attacked him with brisk and brutal takedowns. Brown’s bumbling answers sure didn’t help the situation: An American PMQ Equivalent Is Good for our Democracy At bottom, PMQs are an exercise in accountability. There are no carefully staged press conferences, no grandstanding speeches for the C-SPAN camera in an otherwise empty government chamber, no softball questions from a sympathetic podcaster, and no teleprompters or aides whispering test answers. Just the leader of a free nation and everyone else hoping that he either makes a fool of himself or doesn’t. If the Emperor has no clothes, trust me, you’ll know it. And in today’s America, with someone like Donald Trump in the Oval Office, we need that. Let’s be honest: Most of our politicians, regardless of party, couldn’t handle the intellectual preparation that PMQs requires. Heck, presidential candidates and the political consulting class get all bent out of shape just preparing for a few debates every four years. Similarly, most of our politicians lack true conviction in their positions. Instead, messaging on issues is polled and tested in small group petri dishes. And billions are raised to fund the entire exercise. Not exactly the stuff we want our leaders to be made of. An American version of PMQs, however, would lay waste to this entire strategy. More than anything else, Americans desire authenticity. For most of us, we would support a politician that may not share our views on all issues, but means what she says and says what she means. PMQs would make this apparent: the well-prepared float to the top while those who lie or can’t defend their actions and policies sink in front of our eyes. In the end, competence and conviction are rewarded. Moreover, our form of government depends on checks and balances across our three branches. As it relates to the Executive Branch, yes, Congress can investigate and impeach, but those tools are rarely utilized and slow in action. Moreover, over the past two decades, we see these tools fail. In part, because communication between branches is glacial and politicized, but also, because the Supreme Court is adopting the view of an all-powerful Executive Branch. And when one party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress? Forget about it; the fix is in. An American version of PMQs would bring immediate transparency to the actions of the Executive Branch. I don’t think you need convincing, dear reader. Watch any of the clips above and just insert the issues of today as questions. Imagine Convicted Felon Trump having to weekly defend the appropriateness … of EVERYTHING HE IS DOING. He would sink like the Titanic. Most importantly, I do believe an American version of PMQs would renew confidence in our form of government. One of the frightening effects of our political fragmentation is that people are losing trust in our political institutions. Perhaps an American version of PMQs would serve as a weekly reminder to all of us of how our government works and the work that is, in fact, being done…or NOT done. Then we can decide for ourselves whether we like it, or instead, we choose to throw the bums out. At a minimum, it would make for some good TV. [i] Per Parliament’s official website: Despatch boxes were originally used by Members of Parliament to carry documents into the Commons Chamber. Two can now be found permanently in the Chamber on the central table and contain religious texts for the day of the Oath. Frontbenchers (ministers and shadow ministers) deliver their addresses from their side’s despatch box. The despatch boxes in use today were gifts from New Zealand and designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott to replace the boxes destroyed in the Second World War bombings. Scott was able to base his design on the despatch boxes in the Australian Parliament. The Australian boxes were gifted to Australia by King George V in 1927 and based on A.W.N. Pugin’s original despatch boxes for the House of Commons. The boxes are made from puriri wood which is native to New Zealand. The metalwork above the lock shows an entwined “GE” which stands for King George VI and his Queen, Elizabeth. Cast into the metalwork the words “The Gift of New Zealand” and the Latin words “Domine Dirige nos” meaning “Lord, guide us”. They were made by H.H. Martyn & Co. Ltd., of Cheltenham, England.