Janan Ganesh on UKIP, via Jeremy Corbyn: a comment by American Writer

An attack on UKIP via Jeremy Corbyn? It looks like the star of the show is Mr. Ganesh’s unalloyed animus toward Corbyn, rather than the brief walk ons by UKIP. Those pointed  insults to Mr. Corbyn now enjoy the status of cliches of the Ganesh political commentary  on Labour. Or at least the Labour that looks to have discarded the Neo-Liberalism of Tony Blair, with a kind of finality that goes against the grain of Ganesh political sensibility. And the ordinary reader might draw the conclusion, with a certain reserve, that the Ganesh political  sensibility can be succinctly described as corporatist or neo-corporatist.

‘The people around Mr Corbyn are less clear-eyed. They think of poor white Britons as improbably romantic heroes — the Jarrow marchers, the miners in the film Pride — if they think about them at all.’

Does the notion of ‘ improbably romantic heroes’ as described by Ganesh as a political delusion of Labour, as led by Corbyn have its corollary in the Neo-Colonialist notion that the Falklands belong to Britain. That sun has set! Except to those who cling to a past that no longer exists, except as a point of referral to past glory, in the dismal political present.

And then there is this:

‘Poor white Americans have their stories told faithfully. There are John Updike novels and Bruce Springsteen albums about the banality and frustration of the rust belt.’

John Updike was a novelist that celebrated the heterosexual obsessions, not to speak of the ennui of the American Middle Class male, not the poor. He spent his later years writing art criticism for The New York Review of Books. The waning of his sexual appetite/obsessions sparked his literary sensibility and his attention to the world of art. Mr. Spingsteen enjoys the status in America as a bard, for reasons not fathomable to Mr. Ganesh.

American Writer



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.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.