Neo-Conservative Ghoul Bret Stephens turns his attention to ‘Oregon’s Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, better known as Measure 110’…

Old Socialist’s brief commentary.

Mr. Stephens can reach a state of high dungeon, in just moments, and maintain it’s screeching intensity, over the course of 868 words, in his latest moralizing diatribe. With telling changes of scene for Oregon to Portugal: quoting from Jeff Bezos Neo-Con- Rag ‘The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola and Catarina Fernandes Martins’ and The Economist, who still employs the embalmed remains of Walter Bagehot, ghosted by Adrian Wooldridge. The history of this monument to looking backward is here:

Neo-Conservatives are steeped in the intellectual/philosophical mendacity employed by Leo Strauss, who tried to re-write the History of Western Philosophy. Mr. Stephens is an inhabitant of Strauss’ tiny island nation, barely peeking out of that vast sea of Counter-Evidence.

Like his political ally Niall Ferguson’s hyperbole, Mr. Stephens paints a vivid, disturbing portrait of the these two locations, undergirded by the failed attempts of a class of incompetent civic/medical actors, to solve such a vexing societal problem. Yet the compelling case of the human misery of addiction, does not prick the conscience Mr. Stephens. He is full of indignation at failed policies that attempt to ameliorate such misery.

The Reader need only look at the political trajectory of The Neo-Liberals, and their wholesale dismantling of The Welfare State, as path to a more perfect expression of the Free Market? And The War Mongering of the Neo-Cons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, Black Sights etc. – and the soldiers, nurses, and other personnel returning to civilian life, as possible explanations for the loss of Hope in the ‘West’ : Oregon, Portugal ?

Mr. Stephens’ posture of Public Moralist fractures, as The Reader continues her rhetorical journey.

Old Socialist

Unknown's avatar

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.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.