All the hallmarks of the the Ganesh World View are present in his latest essay, yet his reactionary politics, of a radical nostalgia for his re-imagined glories of a British Past, are obscured by another of his mainstays, his free flowing bile and contempt for those lesser being, who are not Janan Ganesh.
Mr. Ganesh scolds the ‘British elite’ for its interest in American politics, and then proclaims that the interest of that elite is somehow deficient, because these followers of that politics do not follow, with equal interest, the Chinese political scene. That propinquity comes from the fact that America is Britain’s child, or has that salient point been lost in the haze of his expression of bile and contempt? Certainly not from historical ignorance?
The British elite’s passion for American politics manages to be self-abasing and weirdly proprietorial at the same time. It betrays both national decline (in the acceptance that America, not Britain, is the metropole) and delusions of grandeur (in the conceit that we, like Greeks to the Romans, uniquely understand this offshoot republic).
It cannot be passed off as a global perspective. You do not see these people pore over Chinese politics as studiously. They are not steeped in the interior workings of an EU that is about to decide this country’s terms of access to its colossal market. It is just clingy ex-lover behaviour, only less becoming.
Let me recommend to Mr. Ganesh and his readers Ulrich Beck’s book ‘Twenty Observations On A World In Turmoil’ chapter 19 ‘What Is Meant By Global Domestic Politics ?’ Mr. Beck extemporizes on a idea/theme from Marshall McLuhan of the Global Village, that once seemed more obscure, in a time before the internet, but has become a focused idea in Beck’s idea of Global Domestic Politics. And the evolution of an idea and reality of an interconnected world, no matter how imperfectly realized in the present i.e. the British elite’s interest if American rather than Chinese politics.