At The Economist: My reply to GreedIsGood


Three well argued even elegantly written replies, but you’ve missed this revelatory essay:

Title and subtitle explain much, but not all of this account, or better yet call it a long apology for The Republicans. The Oxbridgers employed by The Economist are nothing if not accomplished at the art of propaganda.

‘The trouble with being right:
A year out from the election, the GOP looks simultaneously chaotic and enormously successful’

In sum, the triumph of Reaganomics  as revealed truth, with the Economic collapse of 2008 subject to a Stalinist erasure, to engage in rhetorical foreshortening.

Links to GreedIsGood comments:

After all the historical revisionism, triumphalism the final three paragraphs focus on the real problem with the Republicans, and their penchant for ‘reform’: meaning more Neo-Liberalism, failure upon failure equaling political nihilism!

An alternative view is that the party’s success in state and congressional elections has convinced those Republicans still interested in winning national power that the need for reform is less urgent than it is. A post mortem by the Republican National Committee into Mitt Romney’s defeat in the 2012 presidential election found that the party was widely viewed as “scary”, “stuffy” and “out-of-touch”. But then, in a wave of anti-establishment rage, it swept the mid-terms in 2014, and whatever impetus for reform existed was lost.

Can it be regained before next year’s presidential election? It is otherwise hard to see how the party can carry out the necessary expansion of its base. In 2012 Mr Romney hoovered up the white vote, but lost because he won support from only 27% of Hispanics, the fastest-growing electoral group. To win next year, his successor will need to get around 40% of the wary Hispanic vote, reckons Mr Rubio’s pollster, Whit Ayres.

That would require the party not only to stop bashing immigrants, but also allay the wider concerns about its motives, indiscipline and intemperance. It is not only Mr Trump’s excesses that are hurting it. Political parties, like people, tend to get the reputations they deserve, and the Grand Old Party’s may yet shut it out of the White House next year.


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.