US Accountability Crisis: How British Institutions Outperform in Curbing Elite Impunity
In a striking historical reversal, the United Kingdom is now providing crucial lessons in political accountability to its former colony, the United States. While elite impunity runs rampant across American politics—from a president who conspired to overturn an election to the privileged "Epstein class"—British institutions have managed to impose both social shame and legal consequences on high-profile figures like Prince Andrew and Lord Mandelson. This contrast reveals fundamental differences in how democracies constrain their most powerful members.
The Power of Shame in Democratic Accountability
Being publicly shamed differs significantly from being convicted in a court of law—a distinction often emphasized by critics of social accountability movements. Yet both mechanisms prove essential for maintaining democratic norms and basic decency. Effective shaming requires that accused individuals belong to groups whose approval matters to them. Consider Larry Summers resigning from Harvard rather than facing colleagues and students who might disapprove of attitudes revealed in Epstein-related documents.
By contrast, many American politicians demonstrate remarkable shamelessness regardless of how cruel or racist their statements become. This occurs because their constituents either don't mind or because they can avoid unpredictable public encounters—Republican congressmen systematically cancel town halls, creating insulated environments where accountability cannot penetrate.
Institutional Constraints: British Media and Political Parties
Elites typically possess the power to select their social circles, using status to exclude critics. However, political institutions—when functioning properly—can constrain even the most powerful figures. This represents a crucial divergence between contemporary American and British political landscapes.
The British press, despite its many flaws including morally questionable tabloid practices, remains an institution capable of ending political careers. As social scientist David Karpf explains, politicians once believed journalists represented and shaped public opinion, making scandals potentially career-ending. Today, politicians have discovered through social media that they can often escape consequences. This problem intensifies in America's profoundly asymmetric media environment, where approximately one-third of the population exists within a rightwing media bubble that filters out factual news, making widespread shamelessness less surprising.
Political parties serve as another crucial enforcer of accountability. Observers long noted parallels between Donald Trump and Boris Johnson—both seemingly scandal-proof figures. Yet Johnson's Teflon coating eventually wore off when his own party forced his resignation. Despite criticisms of the Conservative Party, it remains a functioning political institution. The same cannot be said for the personality cult displayed during Trump's State of the Union address, where North Korean-style adulation revealed a fan club rather than Jefferson's envisioned "natural aristocracy" of mature leaders.
The Contagion of Shamelessness and Its Consequences
As biographers have documented, those close to Trump frequently begin imitating his conduct—shamelessness becomes contagious. When improper behavior occurs with high frequency, it becomes difficult to create scandals around any single incident. "Flooding the zone with improper behavior" prevents public focus on specific transgressions.
More insidiously, shaming can become a resource for rightwing populists. Legitimate criticism of MAGA politics gets dismissed as evidence that "crazy Democrats" disrespect "real Americans." Any shame experienced can be relieved through doubling down on shameless conduct to provoke liberal outrage. According to social scientist David Keen, maintaining political power requires leaders to continually produce the very feelings of shame from which they supposedly liberate followers.
This dynamic extends beyond outrageous statements to material benefits familiar from organized crime. Those demonstrating absolute loyalty gain opportunities to participate in corrupt acts while enjoying impunity. Kashyap Patel allegedly used FBI planes for personal joyrides and delayed crucial FBI responses, yet faced no consequences as long as sycophants remained loyal to their leader. Trump explicitly offered this bargain on his second administration's first day: exchange impunity for criminal behavior benefiting him personally, as demonstrated by pardons for January 6 insurrectionists.
Judicial Systems and the Unprecedented Challenge Ahead
In other democracies, courts have successfully held aspiring autocrats accountable—Jair Bolsonaro and former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol ultimately faced imprisonment. In the United States, however, a court system increasingly influenced by Trump-aligned conservatives has granted the incumbent immunity for actions potentially classified as official acts. What Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed as "extreme hypotheticals" of criminal behavior in Justice Sotomayor's dissent has become daily reality.
Combined with Trump's uninhibited use of presidential pardons for political and financial advantage, these developments create an unprecedented accountability challenge. The post-Trump era presents a crisis in democratic oversight that requires urgent institutional responses to prevent further erosion of political norms and elite accountability mechanisms.
