Then came the riots, and a great deal of public unease. This was not how Britain ought to be. Again, the Prime Minister struck exactly the right note: reassuring but firm. He displayed the most important quality which a political leader needs in difficult circumstances: grip. He took a grip on the crisis and in so doing, set the terms of the debate: that while social problems must be addressed, there is no excuse for criminality.  So far, so good: now for the real difficulties. What happens next? For 45 years, Libya has been a fruitcake-ocracy. There is no culture of democracy or the rule of law. Vast and thinly populated outside the main towns, Libya is an artificial creation. It might evolve into a peaceful and seriously rich country, or it may be that in five years’ time, we will all be feeling nostalgic for Gaddafi. More widely, the Arab Spring is proving to be a troubled season. By the standards of the 20th century, the overthrown governments of Egypt and Tunisia were not that bad. Replacing them with a radically improved dispensation will require much more than a spasm of youthful enthusiasm.  In the West, however, we are all talking like neo-conservatives. That mindset is an inspiring and dangerous blend of idealism and naivete. The neo-cons want everyone to live in prosperity and freedom, which is admirable. What is alarming is that they think that this is easy to achieve. They believe that they have discovered the political equivalent of penicillin: democracy. Anyone tempted to agree with them ought to study Hitler’s rise to power and Ayotallah Khomeini’s popularity ratings circa 1979. A few years ago, the Algerian generals used considerable brutality – far worse than Gaddafi – to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from winning an election. Were they wrong? In Syria, the Christian and Jewish communities are both on Assad’s side. With him, they know where they are. Under a democracy, they could become the first victims. If only the Maghreb and the Muddle East permitted us the luxury of easy moral judgments.  In Opposition, David Cameron would have agreed with that sceptical approach. Back then, he was emphatically not a neo-con. On visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, he was impressed by the soldiers and deeply unimpressed by the missions’ clarity of purpose. Now, he seems to have swallowed the neo-con prescription whole. It is to be hoped that he has not forgotten his earlier lessons: although we got away with it in Libya, this does not eliminate the need for extreme caution before embarking on any similar venture.  The Prime Minister also has an equally challenging venture at home: tackling the British underclass. A few days ago, Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, wrote an optimistic and characteristically thoughtful article, pointing out that there is a precedent for successful social reform. Oliver Twist and David Copperfield’s journey across Kent are powerful accounts of the squalor and lawlessness of pre-Victorian England. But there followed decades of steady improvement. Since our problems are much smaller, we should be in a stronger position.  Well, yes and no. Although Lord Sacks’s arguments seem convincing, he is ignoring the elephant in the room. Most of the Victorian poor lived in families. The family is easily the most effective agent of moral behaviour in the whole of history. It really is social penicillin. Yet in a single generation, we have forgotten that vital truth. There are now housing estates where “family” means a harassed girl of 20 with three children by three different fathers; where boys are growing with no non-criminal male role-models; where, as the Prince of Wales observed, a gang could seem like a refuge to a lost and frightened boy.  Here, David Cameron has the defects of his qualities. Since he has such a powerful sense of how things ought to be, he is insufficiently appreciative of the obstacles in the way. He has an ideal of well-run villages where everyone contributes to the little society. Granny Bloggins is getting a bit shaky: not to worry, someone will make sure that she has a hot meal every day. People there do not wait for the local council to solve problems, they just roll up their sleeves and get on with it.  The PM’s own experiences may therefore lead him to underestimate the sheer hopelessness of underclass life. It is no use indulging in gimmicks such as ministerial monitoring, or even the vague idea of six months’ national service. We have to work out a way of acting directly on the underclass. And this, in effect, means finding a replacement for the family. That is a vast enterprise: vaster than our PM yet realises.  Great leaders sometimes underestimate the difficulties they confront. Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviet system was wrong, and had no patience with those who thought that it would endure indefinitely. He was triumphantly vindicated. But the Soviet Union was an easier foe than Islamic fundamentalism or the British underclass. David Cameron has strength of purpose and determination: sometimes, indeed, stubbornness. All well and good – but there are moments when the blend could be improved by some old-fashioned Tory pessimism.
The Prime Minister shouldn&rsquo;t give up his vision for Libya and Britain, but he    needs a touch of realism.