Gillian Tett on political pragmatism, a comment by Almost Marx

Does Ms. Tett’s column mark a shift of The Party Line at The Financial Times? From the Rebellion against The Elites hysteria, to a grudging acceptance of Tump as a political inevitability? At which point, we must come to terms with this political monster and hope that he moderates his political tone: the proffered pragmatism? Call this wishful thinking? Or does Ms. Tett exercise clairvoyance, instead of relying on empirical evidence? To state the obvious, the future is unknowable. Political speculation in this instance acts as an analgesic.

Then comes Republicans :Huntsman, Kasich,Christie aided by Neo-Liberals/New Democrats  Lieberman,  Martin O’Malley,  that appear under the Group designation of ‘No Labels’ which advocates ‘reform’ and ‘planning’ for the future. The rise of the  political front group is about politicking in a more respectable key, that puts front and center, the perception of that respectability as fact. The very notion that the Republican Party harbors any ‘pragmatists’ is prima facie ludicrous! Sen. Lugar was the last of the  political pragmatist, who was purged in 2012. And Ryan’s compromise with Obama was about his galloping, not to speak of ruthless, ambition. His fellow Republicans in the House are  restive and outspoken on his exercise of that ‘pragmatism’. 

How does TTP and TTIP figure in Ms. Tett’s and this group’s, and its various members, advocacy of ‘reform’? When TPP and TTIP are in fact creatures of an active political collusion between government and business, that is the very definition of fascism. Trump is not an aberration, but the culmination of the political necromancy practiced by the Republicans since the Nixon/McCarthy era.

Almost  Marx

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.