Anne Applebaum on the European Welfare State & The Populist Right

Just a cursory search of the internet gives this result:

Titled ‘The Right and the Welfare State’ It examines the mainstream political parties on the European Right and their Welfare policies. The notion of the institutions/practices of the Welfare State are antithetical with the Right, Populist or otherwise, is null set!

Ms. Applebaum never misses an opportunity to inveigh against the Old Left, meaning Communism, its part of her credential as a Neo-Con/R2P fellow traveler. Which fits in well with the propaganda push against the dread Populists, of both Left and Right here at the FT. Just read Mr. Wolf’s political hysterics against ‘the great unwashed’ or ‘the revolt of the economic losers’ of January 26,2016: (Be sure to read the comments section, Mr. Wolf and the FT made no friends!)

Ms. Applebaum writes as if the parties of Right she comments on live in a political bubble suspended, like she, in the glory days of the old Cold War, instead  of in the watershed of the collapse of Neo-Liberal dogma and practice. Politicians seek election with the welfare of both their constituents and themselves in mind- these fundamentals escape Ms. Applebaum’s grasp in her zeal to brand the ‘Populists’ on the Right, with an invidious comparison of their welfare policies with that of the failed communist regimes of another century. For a practicing historian of renowned, Ms. Applebaum, in her essay, fails to exercise those critical faculties that have brought her accolades. But instead the reader is confronted with unimaginative propaganda, at least Mr. Wolf’s screed was suffused with an almost engaging passion, an indignant, almost comic self-exculpation, no matter how suffused with an unseemly class bias.

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.