Ted Bromund: PM shines but should have spoken out on fiscal divide

American protocol officials made a series of embarrassing blunders, and the President could not be bothered to do a joint appearance. The US followed up by siding with Argentina over the Falklands, ignoring Britain during its strategic review of Afghanistan, and

attacking "British Petroleum" at every chance it got.

Admittedly, by the time Obama was inaugurated, Brown had entered the tragic failure stage of his time in Number 10, but that was no reason not to be cordial. And it was certainly no reason for the

administration to use Britain as a punch bag.

Speculation continues inconclusively about whether Obama is personally an Anglophobe, thanks to his Kenyan ancestry, but personalities may be entirely beside the point.

The hallmark of this administration's foreign policy is that the squeaky wheels get the grease. Since places like Argentina and Russia are the most skilled in squeaking, this means that they get the lion's share of the care and feeding. Places like Britain, which are mostly squeaked against, get the short end of the stick. This wouldn't be a good deal even if it satisfied everyone – placating Argentina at Britain's expense is a bad deal, period – but, of course, it won't. It will just encourage the squeakers to squeak more.

So while David Cameron's visit to Washington went wildly better than Gordon Brown's, that shouldn't lead us to expect smooth seas ahead. The administration's fundamental foreign policy convictions are not going to allow them to side reliably with Britain: it is not in their nature. Of course, the US shouldn't side with Britain – or Britain with the US – out of thoughtless reflex. But even worse is a US that deliberately and regularly sides against Britain, on the grounds that it's more important to woo new dictatorial friends than keep old democratic ones.

As nice as the agreements, and the conviviality, between Cameron and Obama are to see, it's the follow-up that counts. It's great that Obama has finally put public weight behind the defence trade co-operation treaty between the US and Britain. But it's been a nominal priority of his administration for over a year, and little has happened. It's nice

that they managed to get the protocol of gift exchanges right, even if what they actually exchanged – modern art, one a piece of "graffiti art" – seems slightly below the demands of the occasion.

And Cameron's performance certainly impressed. He's a new face, and after Brown any new face was likely to be received in the US with sympathetic interest. Whereas Obama looked tired, drawn, and dispirited, and Brown always came off as beaten down and on the wrong side of gruff, Cameron has a touch of Harold Macmillan about him: polished, quick on his feet, and in command. It's an American myth that all Britons are quick-spoken, smooth, and witty with appealing accents, but Cameron lives up to the ideal.

But if Cameron has the Macmillan style, he doesn't, thank goodness, have the Macmillan policies. Macmillan was the classic Tory wet. He saw another Great Depression lurking around many corners, and was far more afraid of stepping too heavily on the brake than he was of stomping on the gas. As a result, his default option was always to turn up the Keynesian burner on the economy. They may have belonged to different parties, but underneath, Macmillan and Gordon Brown were cousins.

Neither of their policies brought economically optimal results, though they did win elections on occasion. And while Macmillan was not solely responsible for the stop-go syndrome that plagued Britain until Margaret Thatcher's election, he did help put Britain on a road to increasing state management of the economy.

With the Government's share of Britain's economy now standing, according to the OECD, at 52 per cent, that's a road Gordon Brown explored to its bitter end.

It's not surprising that Cameron and Obama discussed defence trade, BP, the new Lockerbie inquiry, and Afghanistan.

Those were the expected subjects – and in many ways, the right ones. But it's what they did not discuss that matters most of all: their widening and seemingly unbridgeable divide over the proper size of the government and the centrality of the private sector.

That's the most important subject of all, because if the US keeps on going as it is, its entitlements bill will by 2050 consume the entire federal budget. That won't leave much room for defence trade, for good Anglo-American relations, or for foreign policy at all.

While Cameron has a huge job ahead of him – not least in addressing Britain's own unfunded pensions crisis – he has at least begun. And he has acknowledged the need to do more. Obama, by contrast, has continued to double down on spending, and has pushed the question of any remedies off on to an unelected commission that, conveniently, will not report until after the fall elections.

There is just not much room for compromise between these positions: one is responsible, the other is not. Perhaps that is why there is no hint that domestic spending was the subject of discussion. The Obama Administration is usually a big believer in talking, but in this case, even they may have seen the wisdom of staying silent.

But Cameron should have spoken up. Americans could use – in fact, they want – honesty on the virtues of fiscal responsibility. It's great that Cameron is walking the walk. In Washington, he should also have talked the talk.

Ted Bromund is senior research fellow at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, based at The Heritage Foundation in Washington.