The Neo-Liberal Consensus is failed, no matter the pronouncements coming from The Economist or The Financial Times! These declarations about the ‘Hard Left’,’Loony Left’ and other such locutions are the rhetorical cover adopted to mask that failure.
Ignoring the rise of both Right and Left in response to the Depression of 2008 is key to the a-historical approach to this seemingly endless Political Crisis: The why of it, this crisis is endemic, remains outside the ken of The Economist editorlists. The ‘Wisdom of the Market’ the touchstone of Hayek’s economic epistemology is the purest of theologies: ‘Markets’ are subject to the vicissitudes of human emotion or ‘Animal Spirits’! Not subject to some posited ersatz Rationalism: Markets are about the herd instinct, the most dangerous of human frailties.
An historically based appraisal of the rise of both the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ in response to that failed Neo-Liberal paradigm might make this situation comprehensible. That 2008 Depression and it’s successor Austerity, presented as necessary ‘strong medicine’ in response to the excesses of that Market. And the present economic doldrums, allied to the economic stratification under the rubric of ‘Inequality’, make both the rise of the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ subject to a reasoned analysis. Instead what we get from The Economist, and it’s writers, is a repetition of usual Anti-Left hysterics framed in the most self-serving melodramatic terms as demonstrative of political irrationality. Would that The Economist writers might apply the same standard used to vilify Mr. Corbyn to the economic actors in the Market, who were authors of that 2008 Depression, with the aid and comfort provided by an utterly corrupt political class- but now I’ve strayed into a Utopian reverie not unlike the one that The Economist editorial writers bask.