At Rolling Stone: Matt Taibbi on The Brexit vote and The Elites, a comment by Political Reporter

Sam Rye posted a link to Mr. Taibbi’s compelling essay at the very stogy, not to speak of Corporatist Financial Times:

Mr . Rye makes the soundest kind of argument that Mr. Taibbi makes a case of more cogency -not beholden to the current apologetics for the Cold War relic of the EU, nor its being mired in Neo-Liberalism and the Myth of Germanic Virtue.

Read Gideon Rachman’s essay:

‘I do not believe that Brexit will happen, There will be howls of rage, but why should extremists on both sides dictate how the story ends?

More of the same of Elite contempt for the democratic process.

For valuable insights on Rogoff see this essay from the now suspended publication of The New York Times Examiner, the site is still up and a valuable resource:

Reinhart and Rogoff Are Not Being Straight

And as for Mr. Sullivan as some kind of pundit, see this on his unseemly, not to speak of ugly, defense of the Bell Curve ( I know old business, but a revealing insight into Sullivan’s self-serving myopia) :–here’s_why_he’s_wrong

In both the Rogoff and Sullivan consideration as reliable sources of opinion, they both have a verifiable records of bad judgement , not to speak of lack of honesty and worse.

What Mr. Taibbi describes here as  the political arrogance of the Elites, via Platonic chatterers and apologists, for that Elite as knowing better than the Electorate: look to the Constitutional Exceptionalism of Carl Schmitt, as documented in ‘The Enemy, An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt’ by Gopal Balakrishnan In Chapter Eight titled ‘The Crisis of Political Reason’.

Political Reporter

My replies to

My ReplyMrARollingStoneJune302016



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.