The Political World according to Edward Luce, chapter LIII : James Comey ‘panicked’, ‘over-reached’ & ‘hustled’. A comment by American Writer

This is an astounding paragraph coming from Mr. Luce, who plays a staid political conformist, in the pages of The Financial Times, and recites with a certain rhetorical flair, the cliches of the current iteration of the political orthodoxy, as if they were newly minted truths!

James Comey, the FBI director, was panicked into issuing his statement by the opposite fear — that if he had held back Republicans would have accused him of working for Mrs Clinton. Mr Comey, the fearsome sentinel, has over-reached. Public servants should never take actions that could sway a presidential election. His lapse was a result of Mr Trump having already singled him out as part of a “rigged system”. In a country so viscerally divided, neutrality is treated as collusion. On Friday Mr Comey was hustled into making an error.

One can only ask on what empirical evidence does Mr. Luce base this utterly speculative set of assertions? Or should we just call it political fiction, in service to a political end, and or Mr. Luce jumping on the bandwagon driven by Eric Holder and his Washington Post opinion piece?

That sets up Comey as political fall guy, rather than Luce’s melodramatic ‘fearsome sentinel’ nonsense straight out of a Comic Book Universe of stock heroes and villains. On the face of the charge of being ‘panicked’ or subject to ‘over-reach’ or ‘hustled’ seems so out of character for the good grey Mr. Comey – He and Luce share a veneration for political conformity, except that Comey seems authentically to possess an actual gravitas, where for Holder and Luce it is a political pose, a role to be invested in rather than practiced. So much more to be said on Mr. Luce’s rhetorical intervention, my patience for cleverly framed propaganda has reached its limit, at least for today.

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.'
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 )

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.