My reply @Larchmont

@Larchmont @Lund

Larchmont, I do find your reading of the political present fascinating, in its own way. It offers the Trump Party line without its necessary political context. Both you and Mr. Ganesh write in a style that is a pastiche of the feuilleton, refraction meets refraction. Except that Ganesh’s iteration is awash in his almost world weary cynicism of the hipster and his milieu of The City. What might the reader do with the empirical evidence of the politics of America since, say 2006?

The Democrats took the House in 2006 and Obama won the presidency  in 2008. But then in 2010 Obama lost the House: so much for the viability of ‘Hope and Change’. Its shelf-life was about 18 months. And even after his victory in 2012, Obama lost the Senate in 2014, the Republicans now controlled both Houses of Congress.

So what might the reader speculate about the time that Trump, and his allies in the House and the Senate, have to enact their Corporatist Agenda? Given the demonstrable fact of the impatience, indeed the fickle character, of the American Electorate.

After Randian political opportunist Paul Ryan finishes with Social Security and Medicare and his Privatization/Vouchers schemes. As companion to the notion of ‘Alternative Facts’, those enthusiastic supporters of Trump will find it hard to resist the revival of the New Dealers, in the Democratic Party: if the corrupt New Democrats can be successfully purged from the Party. Or the Greens offer an alternative to the failed Neo-Liberal paradigm offered by both mainstream Parties.

@Lund has cogently and succinctly described the new political atmosphere in America, as unwelcome as you find it. Also consider the fact that 46.9% of eligible voters did not cast ballots in the 2016 election. If anything that fact, and Trump’s exercise of political nihilism and his Caudillo style might just create an almost ‘revolutionary situation’. Even if that sounds like an exercise in hyperbole, in 2014 Trump seemed unimaginable!



Reply #2

@Larchmont @StephenKMackSD @Lund

Larchmont, thank you for your comment. The fault of Obama was a total failure to live up of his proclaimed ‘Hope and Change’, that ended up being the same old Neo-Liberalism, draped in empty but edifying rhetoric. Attuned to the aspirations of an electorate ripe for something resembling hope, after 8 years of the bungler Bush The Younger, and his keepers/handlers Cheney and Rumsfeld, not to speak of the porcine Architect Karl Rove, the precursor to guttersnipe Andrew Breitbart.  In fact Obama’s one and two were, in sum,  the Bill Clinton Administrations 3 and 4. The ‘Decline’ you mention was/is the fact that the codified Neo-Liberalism ended in economic catastrophe. You should be thanking all those New Democrats and Republicans, who are dues paying members of the one true American political party: The Property Party, as Gore Vidal named it!

And thank you for your ‘sic passat gloria mundi’ as indicative of your stylistic/intellectual flourish, while for me the quote should be the more apocalyptic Fiat justitia ruat cælum!



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.