Niall Ferguson and The Financial Times discover the ‘political virtues’ of Elizabeth Warren, with the help of Preemptive Stalinist Erasure. Old Socialist comments

Niall Ferguson’s column, of October 13, 2019, offered some rather cynical, not to speak of self-congratulatory speculations on the Warren candidacy, at the good grey Times:

Headline: Elizabeth Warren: the worse, the better for Donald Trump’s female foe

Sub-headline: The Massachusetts senator could win in 2020 if she surges and the economy stutters

Lauren Fedor of The Financial Times and Mr. Ferguson rely on the RealClearPoltics polling data. But predictably for Corporate Media, Sanders is simply mentioned in Fedor’s essay as raising $25.3m to Warrens $24.6m: yet Warren is considered ‘the front runner’ via polling data. Ferguson however ignores the money raised by Sanders, as he hits full rhetorical gallop, from his aerie at the Hoover Institution.

Note too that  ‘Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist who was press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign’ and ‘Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist who served as deputy campaign manager for Barack Obama’s 2012’ are integral parts of  The Democratic Party i.e. New Democratic loyalist, as is ‘Mary Anne Marsh, a Boston-based Democratic strategist’ . 

After Warren’s profession of faith in Capitalist Theology, and Sanders denial of any such faith , the Corporate Media  has now anointed a candidate that the Party can rally around, long before the first primary. That offers more of the same Neo-Liberalism, in the drag of ‘Progressivism’! Again, Sanders is rendered insignificant, by a media that simply ignores him, not just hoping he will go away, but by rendering him invisible. Or just call it Preemptive Stalinist Erasure?

Old Socialist



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 )

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.