StephenKMackSD's Blog

After all the back biting gossip and display of ‘Class Disloyalty’, as entertaining as it was, Mr. Kuper bends low, to defend the coming economic consequences of the Brexit’s effect, on the wage earner whose £20,000 per year will be reduced to  £15,000 producing hungry children.

Now Britain seems headed for recession. When I mentioned this in an email to a privately educated Oxford friend, he chastised me: “You seem unduly concerned about short-term financial impacts. This is a victory for democracy.” I see what he means. If you make £200,000 a year, a recession is just an irritation. But if you make £20,000, it’s a personal crisis, and if you now make £15,000, then soon you may be struggling to feed your children.

Anyway, the public schoolboys have already moved on, first backstabbing each other and now extracting favours from their preferred candidates in the Tory leadership election. “May I count on your vote?” What fun!

One almost expects an extemporaneous riff on the phrase ‘are there no work houses’ to be uttered, to engage in the hyperbolic.But surely, a Newspaper whose readership is the very Elite, whose utter failures across generations, has caused misery and privation starting with Mrs Thatcher, might exercise a bit more usable self-critique, rather than an exercise in political palace gossip allied to more of the same Brexit hysterics/histrionics?

Almost Marx

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f4dedd92-43c7-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html

https://www.patreon.com/StephenKMackSD

With the Brexit vote now an established fact, a crushing but momentary  defeat to the Neo-Liberal Cameron’s political ambition , the manufactured Labour  Antisemitism crisis in the momentary stasis of ‘investigation’, and Corbyn firmly established as leader of the Party, The Financial Times can now give time to another of its propaganda obsessions: Putin as the New Stalin, and his ‘belligerence’ as chronicled in its pages. Two news stories and an editorial mark a return to this journalistic business as usual, the NATO Summit of July 8, 2016 being the subject of the editorial.

Continue reading →

Kudos to Mr. Bacevich. He has managed to evoke from one of The Vulcans a shrill defensive polemic, which at times recovers itself to make some trenchant but short lived observations, in which this policy maker defends not just the catastrophically failed War on Terror but the whole of American Foreign Policy, post World War II. Not to speak of his defense of his fellow Vulcans, like Paul Wolfowitz, while not forgetting his disrespectful treatment of ‘Douglas J. Feith, merely the eighth-ranking civilian official in the Pentagon’.

In these two quoted paragraphs from Bacevich’s book, this soldier/historian make clear beyond doubt his value as that rarest of civic actors/thinkers. Mr. Zakheim continually makes the mistake of quoting Bacevich at his most revelatory:

“the vacuum left by . . . [the British]; intractable economic backwardness and political illegitimacy; divisions within Islam compounded by the rise of Arab nationalism; the founding of Israel; and the advent of the Iranian Revolution.” …

“Schwarzkopf [the field commander who led the operation against Saddam] . . . shared MacArthur’s penchant for theatrics. As with Patton, maintaining his emotional balance required a constant struggle. Like Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf had a volcanic temper. . . . And like the thin-skinned Bradley, he was quick to take offense at any perceived slight. Generalship in wartime requires foresight, equanimity, and a supple intelligence.”

The latter of these quotations evokes this observation:

Apparently, these were qualities that MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower and Bradley—those failed commanders of yesteryear—all did not possess.

Amidst the dross of political defensiveness Mr. Zakheim provides an answer to a reader’s search for a plausible reason for his polemic, for it’s bluntness is again instructive:

Bacevich considers the Clinton administration’s response to Al Qaeda’s bombing of both the World Trade Center in 1993 and the USS Cole in 2000 to have been laughable. But he reserves most of his spleen for the Bush administration’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the team of veteran policymakers that Bush brought with him into office, Bacevich writes, “They arrived knowing everything they needed to know. They just didn’t know enough to avert a horrific attack on the World Trade Center.” Certainly counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke, in particular, tried to warn of an impending Al Qaeda attack on an American target, but Bacevich goes too far in conveying the impression that Bush and his national-security team somehow could have both forecast the exact nature of 9/11 and prevented it and that, therefore, someone should have “lost his or her job . . . [been] reprimanded or demoted.” As the 9/11 Commission made clear, the failure was systemic, not individual.

Mr. Zakheim  and his fellow Vulcans were part of a ‘systemic failure’, this destructive myopia  about 9/11, then takes on a rhetorical life as a sub rosa ‘reason’ for the crimes of Afghanistan and Iraq?

And what is always de rigueur, for the Vulcan menage, a pseudo-defense of the IDF.

Bacevich claims that once initial combat operations had ended, and the American military confronted a growing insurrection and civil war, it adopted the “get tough” posture of the Israeli Defense Forces. Bacevich argues that the IDF’s tactics “reflected an Israeli determination to maintain a permanent grip on the West Bank,” while the similar practices of American forces “raised the specter of the United States maintaining permanent control of Iraq.” He is wrong on both counts. The IDF has never taken a political position on retention of the West Bank, no doubt because much, if not most, of its officer corps supports a two-state solution. IDF tactics, while harsh, and perhaps too harsh, have always been intended to deter future acts of terrorism; on balance, Israel does a much better job in this regard than, for example, Western European forces. In any event, just as the IDF’s operations have no impact on Israeli political decisions regarding the future of the occupied territories, so American counterinsurgency operations in Iraq were in no way a signal of American long-term intentions. Indeed, as Bacevich himself points out, it was George W. Bush who signed an agreement for the withdrawal of American combat troops from that country.

The next two paragraphs Zakheim alludes to his argued stance of a demonstrable political paranoia manifested by Mr. Bacevich: about the  breadth and depth of Vulcan political machination, as if The Project for a New American Century’s manifesto was not easily accessible to even the most incurious of readers.

One claim in particular goes to the heart of Bacevich’s argument. Buttressed by no source higher than Douglas J. Feith, merely the eighth-ranking civilian official in the Pentagon, Bacevich alleges that Iraq was only a prelude to greater things—the remaking of the Middle East via the overthrow of the likes of Qaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Beyond the fact that Feith did not necessarily speak for his Defense Department superiors—and certainly did not speak for the White House—his list of targets did not include Egypt’s Mubarak, the Gulf kingdoms and emirates, and the kings of Jordan and Morocco, for the simple reason that these countries and their rulers were all allied to Washington and, in the case of Egypt and Jordan, had peace treaties with Israel.

Bacevich does quote “one Bush Administration official,” who says, “The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad.” But who was that official? And how senior was he or she? We don’t know, and Bacevich doesn’t tell. In a similar vein, his criticism of the Iraq War, as with many of his assertions throughout the book, relies far too heavily on pundits and columnists. He cites journalists as sources for what policymakers thought (Bob Woodward, whose own books have no notes, is a particular favorite) and employs them as putative spokesmen for a government in which they never served. In this regard, Max Boot in particular is a frequent Bacevich foil. Unfortunately, Bacevich’s passionate opposition to the war simply overwhelms what might otherwise have been a reasonable critique of an operation that most analysts now agree was woefully misdirected from its very inception.

Then we as readers reach the long awaited denouement of Mr. Zakheim  polemic, which doesn’t even surprise, as part of the Vulcan rhetorical set piece of Munich, always Munich:

He blames Obama for not ending the “War for the Greater Middle East,” and for expanding and perpetuating it by surging troops to Afghanistan, a place that he describes as, in words that echo Neville Chamberlain’s shameful characterization of Czechoslovakia, “a distant country about which most Americans knew little and cared even less.”

Then this rather surprising argument by Mr. Zakheim about the vexed question of the ‘judgement’ of Obama, Petraeus and McChrystal, made by a policy technocrat with no military experience- it is astounding in its rhetorical assurance of some self-proclaimed insight base in an imagined empiricism? Not to speak of the revelations of Petraeus’  undeniable incompetence!

He assails David Petraeus, “arguably the most overtly political senior military officer . . . since MacArthur” for launching a “veiled challenge to the authority of the commander in chief” by publicly supporting Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s case for a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. Bacevich goes on to say that Petraeus and McChrystal successfully pressured “the green-as-grass commander in chief without personal military experience” to surge more troops into Afghanistan. Yet the green-as-grass Obama did not hesitate to sack McChrystal over an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, pressure or no. That Obama not only did not fire Petraeus, but appointed him to head the CIA, clearly demonstrates how Bacevich has misunderstood the president’s relationship with his generals.

The next four paragraphs in Mr. Zakheim’s polemic is devoted to Bacevich’s criticism of  Obama’s Foreign Policy: this paragraph offer some valuable insights that almost emancipates itself from the polemical dross:

Bacevich rightly criticizes Obama’s posture, or more accurately, the absence thereof, vis-à-vis the Syrian Civil War. As he puts it, “Libya represented a model of thoughtful planning and competent execution in comparison with Obama’s one other foray into regime change [namely, Syria].” Once again, he offers no new insights, much less alternatives to Obama’s policies. Moreover, his argument that the administration’s use of drones and special-operations forces against Islamic terrorists in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere is a sign of the administration’s “confusion” seems itself confused. What might intervention in Syria have to do with fighting terrorists elsewhere? The former, if fully implemented, could have resulted in regime change; the latter actually is in support of regimes seeking to govern their unruly nations.

Yet this rhetorical mood is dispelled by a return to polemic:

In any event, Obama’s worst sin appears to have been a willingness to reinsert American forces into Iraq. After having asserted, inaccurately, that “the last non-U.S. foreign troop contingents pull[ed] out of Iraq during the summer of 2009” (the British stayed on until mid-2011), Bacevich asks, “Why did Washington choose to reengage militarily in Iraq?” He answers, “Because it couldn’t think of anything better to do.” It is as if the emergence of ISIS as a new terrorist state, with an expanding geographical base and recruits from the world over, including the United States, should not have merited an American response. Once again, Bacevich offers no new real insights, other than to criticize whatever Obama and his team have done.

The last sentence of this  quoted paragraph takes a stance against the very reason and practice of criticism:  ‘Once again, Bacevich offers no new real insights, other than to criticize whatever Obama and his team have done.’ The purpose of Mr. Zakheim’s self-apologetical propaganda is take the onus off his failed policies, to call those policies calamitous is not to engage in hyperbole, but to engage and put that onus on an irresponsible critic, not vested in the self-evident Vulcan Tribalism. Revile and cast out the nonconformist. Look to the concluding paragraphs of Mr. Zakheim’s essay, for the proof of that defamation of Mr. Bacevich: His anger is still there; his insights are unoriginal; and his policy prescriptions are as superficial as they ever were. Shades of Donald Trump.

A RESPECTED military historian recently remarked to me that Bacevich constantly rewrites the same book. He has a point. In recent years Bacevich has written The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (2009); Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War (2011); The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2013); and Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (2014). Bacevich’s latest volume is simply a rehashing and updating of these other books.

There is considerable merit to the argument that the United States needs to be more discriminating in its involvement in overseas conflicts, particularly civil wars that pose no clear threat to America’s vital national interests. Over the past several decades, the United States has been far too prone to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, often to remove and replace their leaders. On the other hand, the very fact that Americans have grown tired of overseas conflicts, and that Obama for all his faults—and there are many—at least prefers not to enmesh the country in new foreign adventures, belies the assertion that America is addicted to armed intervention in the Islamic world. But Bacevich suffers from his own addiction: he cannot bring himself to modify the case against America and its “establishment” that he has been making year after year. His anger is still there; his insights are unoriginal; and his policy prescriptions are as superficial as they ever were. Shades of Donald Trump.

Political Reporter

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bacevichs-middle-east-misdiagnosis-everyone-terrible-16829?page=show

https://www.patreon.com/StephenKMackSD

It has been some time since we have read Mr. Caldwell in the pages of The Financial Times. As background to reading Caldwell on the American Trump phenomenon, and to further the readers knowledge of his idiosyncratic Neo-Conservative world view, in The Age of Terror, one could not find a better critic than Marxist Historian Perry Anderson. Here is a excerpt of Anderson’s reviews of  Caldwell’s book ‘ Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West’, the last three paragraphs of that review are instructive:

In nevertheless suggesting that Europe is confronted with an all but revolutionary danger to its traditional being, Caldwell not only overstates the problems that Muslim minorities – which still amount to no more than about five per cent of the population of Western Europe – present to the EU, but unusually for such a cogent writer, falls into contradiction with himself. On the one hand, he declares that “the conditions unifying Europe culturally have not been better for decades, and Islam is part of the reason why. Renewed acquaintance with Islam has given Europeans a stronger idea of what Europe is, because it has given them a stronger idea of what Europe is not”. On the other hand, he pronounces Europe to be “a civilization in decline”, in which many Europeans already feel themselves exiles in their own homelands, as the number of immigrants rises around them, and an alien creed looms ever larger.

His final word is that “Europe finds itself in a contest with Islam for the allegiance of its newcomers. For now, Islam is the stronger party in that contest, in an obvious demographic way and in a less obvious philosophical way. In such circumstances, words like ‘majority’ and ‘minority’: mean little. When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthed by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter”.

Both judgements cannot be right. But they can be, and are, equally mistaken. Europe is neither being galvanized into a new sense of unity by the reemergence of Islam as its historic adversary, nor demoralized by the superior faith of its Muslim immigrants. If it has cause for disarray, that lies elsewhere, in the combination of servility and resentment it regularly displays in its role as camp-follower of the American hegemon. So far as its relations with the world of Islam are concerned, the best thing that could happen to Europe would be for it to be evicted, bag and baggage, from the Middle East, along with its overlord. That would be a revolution worthy of the name.

http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/portents-of-eurabia#full

‘The bogeyman of Islamism’ is no stranger to Mr. Caldwell!

Political Reporter

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eaf0fdb2-3f8d-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#axzz4DHFZtDuW

Monsignor Douthat’s remit as Opus Dei operative in American Life is to patrol the wombs of American women, to prattle on about ‘out of wedlock births’ the Mortal Sin of abortion and the general Moral Decline, as some of the obsessions  of ‘Conservative Thought’. But don’t forget the Opus Dei specialty of, that dovetails with the American Puritan Tradition, the search for the heretics within the body of believers. The Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Civil War are stark object lessons in that commonality, no matter how starkly antithetical that relationship may appear- one a seeming project to eradicate evil agents of the devil from a religious body,based solely on ‘Spectral Evidence’,  and the other to eradicate the souless political  agents of Communism from the political body, to engage in reductivism. Monsignor Douthat now continues that tradition of the search for and the eradication of the heretical, on an intellectual plane, with his ‘The Myth of Cosmopolitanism’. He opens his essay with this paragraph:

Now that populist rebellions are taking Britain out of the European Union and the Republican Party out of contention for the presidency, perhaps we should speak no more of left and right, liberals and conservatives. From now on the great political battles will be fought between nationalists and internationalists, nativists and globalists. From now on the loyalties that matter will be narrowly tribal — Make America Great Again, this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England — or multicultural and cosmopolitan.

Followed by this telling self-description of his status as a member, in good standing, of a elite free of the taint of the cosmopolitan contagion

Well, maybe. But describing the division this way has one great flaw. It gives the elite side of the debate (the side that does most of the describing) too much credit for being truly cosmopolitan.

He thereby establishes his credibility, as an objective commentator on the heresy of that cosmopolitanism. Followed by a lengthy and utterly self-referential not to speak of self-serving definition of what that cosmopolitanism is, beginning here :

Genuine cosmopolitanism is a rare thing. It requires comfort with real difference, with forms of life that are truly exotic relative to one’s own. It takes its cue from a Roman playwright’s line that “nothing human is alien to me,” and goes outward ready to be transformed by what it finds…

Monsignor Douthat continues his scattershot attack on his chosen targets of the heresy of Cosmopolitanism, in it’s various iterations, garnished with jejune personal references, a list of marginal Literary authors , the high political melodrama of the Brexit,  yet the absence of even a mention of the name Kant demonstrates/secures the Monsignor’s status as incurious American Provincial.

I  can think of at least one current book on Kant and Cosmopolitanism: Pauline Kleingeld’s Kant and Cosmopolitanism, The Philosophical Ideal Of World Citizenship as a most valuable commentary/evaluation and compact source, of the latest scholarly explorations of Kant’s idea of cosmopolitanism:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/philosophy/eighteenth-century-philosophy/kant-and-cosmopolitanism-philosophical-ideal-world-citizenship

American Writer

Here is where Mr. Sullivan’s essay actually begins, in his natural habitat, the cocktail party of movers and shakers in Washington D.C.

‘And so, as I chitchatted over cocktails at a Washington office Christmas party in December, and saw,…’ One can only wonder at what office party? He is one of America’s elite pundits.

The admixture of quotations from Plato and his self-serving interpolations of the Master, reeks of ‘Straussian scholarship’, that opens his essay, mere window dressing to his staged political hysterics about Mr. Trump as the end of ‘Democracy’.  Mr. Sullivan sounds the warning, while carefully eliding from the essay his stark complicity in the rise of the American Caudillo. Amply demonstrated by this quote:

‘And as I watched frenzied Trump rallies on C-SPAN in the spring, and saw him lay waste to far more qualified political peers in the debates by simply calling them names, the nausea turned to dread.’

Mr. Sullivan has watched too many movies, or more likely too much television. But this partial quotation raises the question of Mr. Sullivan’s judgement, if it exists:

…and saw him lay waste to far more qualified political peers in the debates…

In the end the opponents of Mr. Trump were reduced to the utter dregs of American Politics,  Rubio and Cruz: so much for Mr. Sullivan’s judgement if any doubt remained of his status as myopic prattler, or by another name as Neo-Conservative redux. But then more of Plato:

Plato had planted a gnawing worry in my mind a few decades ago about the intrinsic danger of late-democratic life. It was increasingly hard not to see in Plato’s vision a murky reflection of our own hyperdemocratic times and in Trump a demagogic, tyrannical character plucked directly out of one of the first books about politics ever written.

Mr. Sullivan’s selective reading of The Master leaves out the most salient, and perhaps the most important point about Plato, he was no democrat, but an advocate of The Philosopher Kings, as the only way to protect against the mortal political danger of too much democracy. Mr. Sullivan in his maladroit way presents himself as a contemporary iteration of that model of political leadership, in his role of conscious stricken pseudo-technocrat, bemoaning the rise of Trump and Trumpism. But he cannot be brief about his dismissal, his exercise of contempt for The Rebellion Against The Elites, as so aptly named by the Financial Times, as part of their propaganda campaign against Left Wing backbencher Jeremy Corbyn, Le Pen and other continental iterations against a catastrophic Neo-Liberalism- Mr. Sullivan lacks curiosity  and the intellectual range to make that kind of connection. Trump and his epigones happened for the reason that the Neo-Liberal economic policies advocated by Sullivan, and other members of that Elite, collapsed in 2008 and prosperity has yet to return, except to the 1%.

Eric Hoffer makes an appearance in the essay, The True Believer , who was  a willing, and the most able apologist for the Vietnam War, that Lyndon Johnson could scare up from  America’s intellectual class. Some of us are old enough to recall his White House appearances. Sinclair Lewis’ ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ makes its obligatory appearance , but not Phillip Roth’s engaging ‘The Plot Against America’, perhaps too laden with nostalgia and  self-celebration of  Roth as child-hero, not to speak of the political inconvenience of Charles Lindbergh in the dual role of an actual American Hero and as an  American Fascist. Trump is a bully and a coward and the  Circus Ringmaster on The Apprentice. A role that cemented in the public mind his status as Leader.

I have tried to be as brief as possible in my comment, and realize that I can’t answer every part of Mr. Sullivan’s rambling essay, brevity and succinctness are literary strangers to our author.

Political Observer

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

https://www.patreon.com/StephenKMackSD

Sam Rye posted a link to Mr. Taibbi’s compelling essay at the very stogy, not to speak of Corporatist Financial Times:
http://on.ft.com/292vrCK

Mr . Rye makes the soundest kind of argument that Mr. Taibbi makes a case of more cogency -not beholden to the current apologetics for the Cold War relic of the EU, nor its being mired in Neo-Liberalism and the Myth of Germanic Virtue.

Read Gideon Rachman’s essay:

‘I do not believe that Brexit will happen, There will be howls of rage, but why should extremists on both sides dictate how the story ends?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f2aca88-3c51-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?hubRefSrc=email&utm_source=lfemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=lfnotification#ft-article-comments

More of the same of Elite contempt for the democratic process.

For valuable insights on Rogoff see this essay from the now suspended publication of The New York Times Examiner, the site is still up and a valuable resource:

https://www.nytexaminer.com/2013/04/reinhart-and-rogoff-are-not-being-straight/

And as for Mr. Sullivan as some kind of pundit, see this on his unseemly, not to speak of ugly, defense of the Bell Curve ( I know old business, but a revealing insight into Sullivan’s self-serving myopia) :

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/741423/andrew_sullivan_revives_racist_%22bell_curve%22_argument–here’s_why_he’s_wrong

In both the Rogoff and Sullivan consideration as reliable sources of opinion, they both have a verifiable records of bad judgement , not to speak of lack of honesty and worse.

What Mr. Taibbi describes here as  the political arrogance of the Elites, via Platonic chatterers and apologists, for that Elite as knowing better than the Electorate: look to the Constitutional Exceptionalism of Carl Schmitt, as documented in ‘The Enemy, An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt’ by Gopal Balakrishnan In Chapter Eight titled ‘The Crisis of Political Reason’.

Political Reporter

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627

https://www.patreon.com/StephenKMackSD

My replies to Peter_Akuleyev

Headline: I do not believe that Brexit will happen

Sub-Headline : There will be howls of rage, but why should extremists on both sides dictate how the story ends?

Gideon Rachman is in high dungeon at the Brexit vote and as ever he voices the rage and anguish of the plutocrats and oligarchs, that their ideological hobbyhorse, the EU, has been dealt a crippling blow: from ‘extremists from both sides’: Mr. Rachman needs a refresher course in what defines the Democratic State:

But there is no reason to let the extremists on both sides of the debate dictate how this story has to end. There is a moderate middle in both Britain and Europe that should be capable of finding a deal that keeps the UK inside the EU.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f2aca88-3c51-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html#axzz4Csgx5yw1

Perhaps one might view the vote as the integrating third term in the dialectic of The Rebellion Against the Elites/ The Failure of the Elites to place it within Hegelian parlance. Those ‘extremists of both sides’ and others made up a majority! The political facts are more than clear, yet that can’t interfere with the Capitalist Utopianism, that is the political/intellectual mooring of Mr. Rachman’s faith in what? Certainly not in the democratic process!

Enter this movie melodrama, as per Mr. Rachman’s rhetorical frame, Rupert Harrison with something that resembles political sense, rationality and perhaps, by accident?, something like a regard for the democratic process: all framed in an enlightened economic policy advocacy.

Headline:  We now need a proper roadmap to quell corrosive uncertainty

Sub-headline:  Control and sovereignty, not immigration, were main drivers of Leave vote, writes Rupert Harrison

The nature of that map should reflect the reality — the UK is to leave the EU — but it should also reflect the narrow nature of the vote. It is significant that the polling evidence since the vote suggests that control and sovereignty, not immigration, were the main drivers of the Leave vote. The right aim, therefore, should be some kind of “European Economic Area minus” deal.

Perhaps my enthusiasm was a bit premature, although for The Financial Times, Mr. Harrison’s political/economic rationalism is a refreshing change from the relentless  Brexit Hysterics. But Mr. Harrison offers the hope, that rationality will prevail, in the midst of the current manufactured climate of crisis, and at its headquarters at The Financial Times.

The final challenge is political. The Conservative party must now conduct a leadership contest, decided by party members, in which the contenders will be asked to set out their stall for the UK’s future relationship with Europe. That is not the ideal environment for cool, rational planning in the national interest. To avoid unrealistic promises, the leadership candidates could each be given access to official support from the civil service to help develop their policy platform. The Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition government of 2010-15 provides a possible precedent.

The people have spoken, now we need to figure out exactly what they have said and find a way to make it happen without causing too much damage.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61687770-3c7a-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#axzz4Csgx5yw1

Should my faith in Mr. Harrison’ economic/political rationality be modulated,informed even nullified by this revelation?

‘The writer, a former chief of staff to George Osborne, is chief macro strategist for multi-asset strategies at BlackRock.’

Almost Marx

https://www.patreon.com/StephenKMackSD

My comment @Voice

I’ve been expecting Bagehot’s comment on the Brexit, but I wonder where he has been, and what he has not been reading? The Rebellion Against The Elites has been the Party Line at The Financial Times, the once sister publication to The Economist, since the improbable rise of Jeremy Corbyn, the incarnation of the evil of Old Labour i.e. The Party before Neo-Thatcherite Blair. What the writers and editors, at The Financial Times, elided from that ‘Rebellion’ thesis was to mention it’s political/rhetorical twin The Failure of The Elites, and their hobbyhorse of Neo-Liberalism: it’s collapse and the  eight years of economic decline that have followed. Cameron was still in Austerity mode after his victory: a way to cement his trustworthiness with the electorate? Add to the conversation the idea that while the Utopianism of Soviet State Capital was in near total collapse, the West began it’s infatuation with Free Market Utopianism.
Also elided from the political polemic that Bagehot constructs is the stark object lesson of the Greek Crisis:  Merkel, the European Central Bank, and other EU political actors rode roughshod over the Greeks. And trumpeted themselves a part of The Virtuous Northern Tier. Note that Germany defaulted four time in the 20th Century, reported by Gillian Tett at The Financial Times:

To some, Germany faces a moral duty to help Greece, given the aid that it has previously enjoyed

As the crucial election looms in Greece later this month, newspapers have been full of pictures of demonstrations (or riots) in Athens. But there is another image hovering in my mind: an elegant dining hall on the shores of Lake Lucerne in Switzerland.

Last summer I found myself in that spot for a conference, having dinner with a collection of central bank governors. It was a gracious, majestic affair, peppered with high-minded conversation. And as coffee was served, in bone-china crockery (of course), Benjamin Friedman, the esteemed economic historian, stood up to give an after-dinner address.

The mandarins settled comfortably into their chairs, expecting a soothing intellectual discourse on esoteric monetary policy. But Friedman lobbed a grenade.

“We meet at an unsettled time in the economic and political trajectory of many parts of the world, Europe certainly included,” he began in a strikingly flat monotone (I quote from the version of his speech that is now posted online, since I wasn’t allowed to take notes then.) Carefully, he explained that he intended to read his speech from a script, verbatim, to ensure that he got every single word correct. Uneasily, the audience sat up.

For a couple of minutes Friedman then offered a brief review of western financial history, highlighting the unprecedented nature of Europe’s single currency experiment, and offering a description of sovereign and local government defaults in the 20th century. Then, with an edge to his voice, Friedman pointed out that one of the great beneficiaries of debt forgiveness throughout the last century was Germany: on multiple occasions (1924, 1929, 1932 and 1953), the western allies had restructured German debt.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/927efd1e-9c32-11e4-b9f8-00144feabdc0.html

Bagehot’s search for an apt historical analogy proves fruitless, or perhaps the better descriptor is labored, yet the garnish of certain historical points of interest are apposite,while not being wholly convincing, if my own thought process doesn’t confuse the issue. Bagehot writes the crudest kind of psychoanalysis of the Brexiteer voter, a kind of Pop Psychohistory , reinforced by British stereotypes, as an alternative to the etiolated Freudian vocabulary :  the momentary mania of ‘For now Brexiteers will congratulate themselves for unleashing the inner anarchist’ and the hope of one of the elites’ apologist that  ‘worldly scepticism—must and will reassert itself.’ 

Philosophical Apprentice

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21701266-englands-vote-brexit-exposes-anarchic-streak-otherwise-pragmatic-people

https://www.patreon.com/StephenKMackSD