At The Financial Times: Janan Ganesh demonstates The Myopia of the Winner, a comment by Political Reporter

Mr. Ganesh demonstrates that the enemy of the political winner is the inability to conceive the possibility that the opposition can win. Call it the myopia of the winner.

Given the rise of Corbyn, or someone like him, Mr. Cameron puts his political capital behind Austerity, but an Austerity that only affects the poor. How perverse must your political judgement be, to attack the very people who can deliver political victory to the ‘un-electable’ Mr. Corbyn?

‘And David Cameron has an embarrassment of riches. Since renewing his premiership in May, he has already revised or delayed legislation to satisfy his own dissenting MPs. His plan to cut tax credits, income supplements for the low-paid, is being resisted by colleagues and newspapers, including proudly rightwing ones.’

What is relevant to the future of the Tories is to recognize that Neo-Liberalism is a spent force, and that the attack on the poor is an invitation to defeat. No amount of internal dissent can save a Party, that is still invested in Austerity exclusively aimed at the disadvantaged. Again the myopia of the winner!

‘…Conservative squabbles can deprive Labour of any relevance it has left after electing the unelectable Jeremy Corbyn as leader.’

‘There is such a thing as an optimal level of dissent: too little and the official opposition fills the vacuum, too much and things fall apart.

This last pronouncement truly demonstrates the myopia of the winners. Look at the American election of 2008 as a telling counter example!

‘People do not vote for hope and vision, but for the lesser evil.’

I can say that what appears most puzzling about Mr. Ganesh’s style of argument is that he appears to be a student of Derrida!

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.