The Greek Election: Krugman/Douthat by Political Observer

Compare the more empirical and historically based , revelatory arguments of Paul Krugman, on the Greek crisis and election, with the usual politically exploitable left wing paranoia of Conservative Ross Douthat. Although the discussion are not exactly parallel, Mr. D. extemporizes on the 'lazy southerner' of Bonn/Brussels myth, adding the political frisson of nihilistic radical left wing politicking, that always resonates with his political fellow travelers. The self-willed and irresponsible Left will, by it's actions, force the responsible members of that loose federation called the Eurozone, to precipitous action. Syriza represents a minority in Greek political life, as the elections demonstrated, but the imperative that Mr. D. expresses, in an American political context, is that the 'Left' is destructive and illegitimate, prima facie, no matter the context. A closely held belief of Conservatives: Occupy and the Nader of 2000 being the objects of his moralizing contempt. Mr. D. pitches his commentary to an American reader who fully accepts the political nihilism of the Tea Party; it's ideological control of the Republican Party, as a matter of urgent necessity, of national rescue, from the mendacity and bad faith of an outdated politics of pragmatism. Creating a politics of purity without compromise, which means no politics at all. Mr. D. does not acknowledging certain themes that both the Tea Party and Syriza have in common. Read this story at the Guardian for some insight into the elections, that puts the 'lazy southerner' myth into a more rational perspective. I am not saying that my interpretation of events and political predispositions is one hundred percent correct or true. But simply reading the Greek crisis in it's American political context, following the lead of Mr. Douthat.

Political Observer

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.