At The Financial Times: Mr. Wolf on Jeremy Corbyn, a comment by Political Reporter

The ‘sea change’ is upon us, Mr. Corbyn and his reckless Left comrades, yet even the political rationalist, the elder statesmen of the FT, Mr. Wolf, speaks in the same hysterical rhetoric that dominates the political conversation, although strategically muted. On Mr. Corbyn: across the stunted political spectrum of respectable bourgeois discourse, Mr. Corbyn is the harbinger of political gridlock and or the argued predictor of a Tory political supremacy over- how long is this supremacy supposed to last? The ability to read the future is one of the most valuable assets of the Corby critics, yet it confines itself to looming disaster: perhaps the power of wishful thinking? Perhaps we should also observe that the sudden economic collapse of 2008, and the failure of  Neo-Liberal economics, and it’s argued rationalism are perpetually off stage in the ‘evaluations’ of Mr. Corbyn’s ‘Radical Politics’: he plays the role of the threatening political outsider bent on destroying a Centrist Politics that have proven to be catastrophic.

In sum Mr. Wolf repeats, with a telling fidelity, the ‘political wisdom’ of the moment. He forgets, more strategic thinking in service to ideology, that the rise of both Left and Right is in response to the utter failure of the Neo-Liberal Consensus. That began with Thatcher and Reagan and their epigones, which ended in the Crash of 2008, followed by Austerity and then to the dismal economic present. An holistic view of politics, as it has evolved since 2008 is not just an inconvenience, but tied to a retrograde apologetics for those Neo-Liberal dogmas, that made Farage, Corbyn and even Le Pen, Syriza and Podemos politically possible, perhaps even inevitable.

Political Reporter

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.