There's more to politics than nice v nasty Newt Gingrich knows this. Rick Perry knows it too. They also know that the electoral fate of the Republican party relies on standing by this argument and bringing it home to American voters who are, in fact, extremely receptive to it already, being more inclined than Europeans to accept the need for a bit of ruthlessness in the pursuit of productive progress and long-term wellbeing. So why did they do it? There was more to this than Gingrich's longing for revenge, even though he certainly did want to retaliate for the blood-curdlingly negative campaign that Romney had run against him in Iowa. And there was more to it than mindless opportunism on Perry's part. What they were doing was what politicians often do when they are trading off their convictions for a momentary popularity grab - and here comes the British analogy. They were engaging in the nice v nasty game. In times of political crisis or confusion, there is always a category of people or forces which is regarded as incorrigibly wicked, against which the rest of the "nice" population is cast as blameless and in need of protection. In the Eighties, it was the trade unions who were the nasties and the put-upon strike victims who were blameless and "nice." Now it is the bankers and the hedge-fund managers who are the devils incarnate and whose pay David Cameron promises to limit - even though that is probably legislatively impossible. There is almost always some justification for these Manichean generalisations: the behaviour of a whole cohort of capitalist outriders over the past decade has been appalling and criminally irresponsible. But politicians here - and now, it would seem, in the US - have adopted a dangerously short-sighted formula: identifying themselves unfailingly with the indeterminate "blameless" others and joining in the demonising not just of a certain group of capitalist practitioners but implicitly of the entire system which those practitioners have abused. Certainly there is a need for free-market economics to be rescued from those who distort and discredit it, but that is the argument that must be made: that this system has delivered mass prosperity (and the self-determination that comes with it) on a scale unprecedented in human history, and that it deserves to be saved from the spoilers. The logic by which real wealth (the kind that can legitimately be spent either by individuals or governments) is created, and the conditions under which it grows and is made accessible to the largest number of people, needs to be explained and defended over and over again. If it is not then the grotesque mistakes of the past decade - which mistook debts for assets and borrowing for growth - will be repeated over and over again. Instead, the politicians play out their phoney duel with the pantomime villains of the moment. Mr Cameron and his Chancellor dare not repeal the 50p rate of income tax, even if it produces little revenue and drives wealth creators from the country, because they cannot risk being seen as friends of the "nasties." Republican presidential candidates repudiate the workings of the free market, which they know created miraculous opportunities for generations of immigrants to America, because they want to be on the side of the "nice" people who hate the banks - especially the ones that were bailed out with taxpayers" money. Indeed, most American voters would probably have preferred to take their chances with a wrecked economy than see institutions saved from the consequences of their own mistakes, which should make standing up for the virtues of self-reliance and freedom quite easy in America. So Romney will probably hold his nerve. Whether Cameron is up for the fight is an open question.