This book analyses the French political crisis, which has entered its most acute phase in more than thirty years with the break-up of traditional left and right social blocs. Governing parties have distanced themselves from the working classes, leaving behind on the one hand craftsmen, shop owners and small entrepreneurs disappointed by the timidity of the reforms of the neoliberal right and, on the other hand, workers and employees hostile to the neoliberal and pro-European integration orientation of the Socialist Party. The presidency of François Hollande was less an anomaly than the definitive failure of attempts to reconcile the social base of the left with the so-called modernisation of the French model. The project, based on the pursuit of neoliberal reforms, did not die with Hollande’s failure; it was taken up and radicalised by his successor, Emmanuel Macron. This project needs a social base, the bourgeois bloc, designed to overcome the right–left divide by a new alliance between the middle and upper classes. But this, as we have seen recently on the streets of Paris and elsewhere, is a precarious process.
Reviews
Praise for Structural Crisis and Institutional Change in Modern Capitalism:
“This book is historical-institutionalist political economy at its best.”
Wolfgang Streeck, ILR Review
In the authors’ view, all the major parties in France have given up on the traditional postwar “social-liberal” compromise that combined moves toward fluid labor markets, external openness, and EU cooperation with continued redistribution, social solidarity, and upward mobility.
Stephen Fry and Gemma Whelan star in a new FT drama written by David Baddiel, exploring AI, memory and truth. Fry plays a grandfather with dementia who uses AI to fill in gaps in his memory. While reviewing the archive of his life his family makes a shocking discovery. Which memories are really true? And how AI is defining who we are?
The American left’s failure to defeat Maga Republicans offers valuable lessons to Labour as it confronts Farage
Josh Freed
Third Way:
Our Mission
Third Way is a national think tank and advocacy organization that champions moderate policy and political ideas. Our work on the center left acts as a critical bulwark against political extremism.
Our Approach
Our approach brings together rigorous policy research, deep knowledge of the people and places that decide majorities, and sophisticated public opinion and messaging data to create strategic advocacy campaigns designed to persuade elected officials and influencers on the defining issues of our time. We advocate for the vital center across seven programmatic areas: climate and energy, economy, education, foreign policy, health care, politics, and social policy.
As passionate moderates—or “radical centrists” per the New York Times—our work is not about splitting the difference but about standing for a values-driven, reform-oriented politics that can both deliver electoral power and drive meaningful policy change. We believe in building an opportunity economy that rewards hard work, making progress on social issues to uphold our fundamental freedoms, winning the global clean energy technology race, and securing our safety against evolving 21st century threats.
Since our founding in 2005, Third Way has earned a reputation for innovative thinking and high-impact campaigns that shift the national debate, help moderates win elections, and motivate ambitious policy reform. We have been lauded as “the best source of new ideas in public policy” (The Washington Post), “the future of think tanks” (Reuters), and the “North American Think Tank of the Year” (Prospect Magazine).
Our Work:
All of Third Way’s policy and advocacy work is:
Principled. We are motivated by a deep love of country grounded in the mainstream American values of equality of opportunity, security, freedom, and a commitment to democratic capitalism.
Political. We design our work to resonate with the moderate American majority and empower a center-left coalition that is broad and deep enough to both win majorities and govern.
Pragmatic. We value progress over purity tests, pursue solutions that are not only ambitious but affordable and actionable, believe in reform not revolution, insist on results that work in the real world, and take pride in our ability to deftly navigate complex policy and political terrain.
The above photopgraph featuring Nancy Pelosi defines The Third Way: Neo-Liberal !
Editor: Jonathan Freedland joins the other Zionists regulars at the Times: Thomas L. Friedman, David Brooks, Bret Stephens & David French! It can’t surprise the regular reader of this newspaper, that Mr. Freedland is used to embroider on well worn themes! With no mention of The Gaza Genocide, committed by Netanyahu and his Fellow Travelers: Joe Biden, A Cadre of US Senators and House Members, all with monitary support for the utterly Faschist AIPAC! Not to mention Donald Trump purchased by Miriam Adelson, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient! My digression points to Jonathan Freedland’s placement of his history in a usable past, freighted by heroism from various sections of German Life, including Jews! Yet Freedland uses his story as a toxic blind to attemp a political erasure of the Gaza Genocide by Netanyahu and his minions!
Editor: A selection from the concluding paragraphs of Mr. Freedland’s Public Moralizing:
…
Several key players in the drama were women whose upbringing shared another striking aspect: a close relationship with a strong father. That was true of Ms. von Thadden and both countesses, Maria and Lagi. In all three cases, the women were not just loved by their fathers; they were trusted by them. In a way that was unusual in the era before modern feminism, they were deemed by their fathers to be the equal of any man, capable of taking on any task. Long after their fathers were dead, the women carried that confidence with them. By the time the Nazis ruled Germany, it had blossomed into courage.
The strength of those women was buttressed by that deeper conviction that is perhaps the key determinant of who defies an oppressive regime and who buckles before it: belief in an authority higher than the government of the day. Most rebels at the tea party also came to understand that such a belief demanded action as well as thought.
For some, that translated into small gestures of defiance, like Lagi Solf and her shopping bags. For others, such as Otto Kiep, it meant acts of audacious resistance, coming within touching distance of a plot to assassinate Hitler. Through deeds large and small, they demonstrated — to themselves and one another — that obedience was not the only option.
To be clear, most aristocratic Germans did not rebel against Hitler. On the contrary, the German nobility largely fell in line behind the Nazis, drawn in part by the Führer’s pledge to restore titles abolished in the Weimar era. And of course, we cannot neatly read across from that place and that time to our own age.
But if there is a lesson to be gleaned from the deadly fate of those men and women, it might just be that the best safeguard against tyranny is a legion of people who believe in an authority higher than any political program, prince — or president.
Editor: Did both The Guardian and Matthew Avery Sutton delay the mention of a notorious Straussian Peter Theil, as the latest figure that trades in “Antichrist” hysteria. How might a Straussian enter this ‘place’ the question hangs in the air like a wild fire that connot be contained?
Let’s recall that Thiel believes:
July 4, 2025 :
Can The New Citizens, like Peter Thiel, associated with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, now present an opportunity to view humanity within another frame? ‘The Straussian Moment’ is now superceded by men who are attached to how their brain functions, as outside ‘the norm’. ?
Editor: Matthew Avery Sutton is a Guggenheim Fellow, that establishes him as an Expert, in sum a Technocrat that writes newspaper commetaries? He is the Claudius O and Mary Johnson distinguished professor and chair of the department of history at Washington State University. (Editor: This puts me in my place!)
Two scenes from the past two weeks capture something unsettling – and familiar –about American public life. In San Francisco, a tech billionaire delivered a sold‑out, off‑the‑record lecture series on the antichrist. In Michigan, a man rammed his pickup truck into a Latter‑day Saints meetinghouse during Sunday worship, opened fire and set the building ablaze, apparently believing that Mormons are the antichrist.
The antichrist is clearly back. But perhaps he has never really left.
As a historian of American apocalypticism, I’ve traced how this symbol – a protean figure cobbled together from obscure biblical passages – has repeatedly migrated from pulpits to politics and back again.
Almost a century ago, fundamentalists mapped European dictators and New Deal bureaucrats on to biblical prophecy. During the cold war, evangelicals scanned Moscow and Jerusalem for signs of the Beast. In the first Gulf war, some Christians argued that Saddam Hussein was the antichrist who was rebuilding the Tower of Babel.
Whenever American power felt threatened or social change accelerated, antichrist talk surged. Today’s version arrives with AI, deepfakes and venture funding. And with bullets.
…
Editor: In a brief but scintillating 1004 words Matthew Avery Sutton narrates the story that is repeated by other men, and a woman, who are like Peter Thiel: Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Bill Ackman, Shari Redstone etc! Thinking about Peter Thiel can be simpified, by thinking about him as a hybred: in sum a cross between Cotton Mather and Leo Strauss!
Headline: New French cabinet shows Macron is still calling shots
Sub-headline: Unveiled Sunday night, the new government led by reappointed Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu faces two no-confidence votes this week and must push through a budget before year’s end.
By Mariama Darame Published today at 11:21 am (Paris), updated at 5:48 pm
If further proof were needed that French President Emmanuel Macron retains control over the prime minister’s office, the composition of Sébastien Lecornu’s new cabinet is the ultimate demonstration. After a three-hour meeting at the Elysée on Sunday, October 12, the president and his prime minister unveiled, just before 10 pm and via a statement from the presidency, the 35 ministers who will face, as soon as this week, two votes of no confidence from La France Insoumise (LFI, the radical left) and the Rassemblement National (RN, the far right).
Lecornu presented a revised version of his initial cabinet, which was deemed too Macronist and had led him to resign after just 14 hours, on October 6. This time, he downplayed the political aspect of his lineup, calling it on X “a government with a mission” that transcends “personal and partisan interests” and whose goal is to “give France a budget before the end of the year.”
…
“The government’s political base has shrunk further, both on the left and the right. And these waves of poaching and expulsions do not bode well for smooth relations with the parties,” said Harold Huwart, a centrist in the LIOT group.
The survival of Lecornu’s government now depends more than ever on the Socialists’ goodwill, as the rest of the left has vowed to bring it down. The Socialists are demanding an end to the use of Article 49.3 of the Constitution, which allows the government to pass legislation without a vote; measures to lower the cost of living; and the “immediate and complete” suspension of the contested 2023 pension reform. These demands must be included in the prime minister’s government policy statement on Tuesday at 3 pm if the Socialists are to spare the government, the party said.
Lecornu has scheduled a meeting with his ministers on Monday afternoon. He will lay out the marching orders ahead of the presentation of the budget bill at the Council of Ministers on Tuesday morning, after Macron returns from a diplomatic trip to Egypt.
Lecornu’s office has instructed outgoing and incoming ministers to keep the traditional handover ceremonies brief and away from the press. His new government has all the hallmarks of a non-event, even for its main players.
Editor: Macron is addicted to his meeting with various ‘leaders’ as a sign of his importance! Mariama Darame and Le Monde play a shabby Political Game!
Headline: Macron is risking a regime crisis
Sub-headline: After the president refused to acknowledge the results of the 2024 legislative elections that his camp lost, his insistence on retaining control has already led two prime ministers to fail in less than 12 months.
Macron refuses to contradict himself or erase part of his record. Yet his most loyal supporters have understood that the Elysée needed to take a step back. Former minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher called for the new prime minister to be someone “not from the Macronist camp,” and Gabriel Attal, one of Macron’s former prime ministers, urged the Elysée not to “persist in trying to control everything.” To no avail.
Has Macron realized that he must step back from his own second term, at least regarding domestic policy, to salvage what remains? After refusing to acknowledge the results of the 2024 legislative elections, his insistence on retaining control has already caused two prime ministers to fail in less than 12 months. Another successful no-confidence motion the week of October 13 would almost certainly force him to call snap elections that would solve nothing and plunge all parties of government into an increasingly strange defeat.
Editor: Even Le Monde’s Editorialist finds Macron’s flacid politicking patently absurd!
Editor: Here are the documents of the R2P. Reader note that this Doctrine is the twin of Neo-Conservatism’s unslakable bloodlust under a ‘Liberal’ guise!
World Summit Outcome Document
138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
1Pillar OneEvery state has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
2Pillar TwoThe wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual states in meeting that responsibility.
3Pillar ThreeIf a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.
Albanian-born political theorist Lea Ypi has built her reputation on turning the ruins of communism into poignant meditations on freedom and dignity. Her new book presents a moving portrait of her grandmother, though its reliance on fictionalized scenes undermines the power of lived memory.
VIENNA – Three decades ago, history swept away communist regimes across Europe. Yet the habits, bureaucratic practices, and instincts of submission and obedience endure, even as societies have established democratic institutions – courts, parliaments, constitutions – and privatized state property.
Since 1989, the most stubborn barrier to democratic change in Central and Eastern Europe has been in the heads and hearts of the region’s people. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for example, has remained in power for 15 years of “single-party democracy” by offering voters a recognizable imitation of authoritarian predecessors like the fascist-era leader Admiral Miklós Horthy and the communist János Kádár and their brand of reactionary or communist national populism.
The persistence of authoritarian patterns tells us that opening to the global market and copying Western institutions can leave untouched the deepest reservoirs of allegiance within a population. Human consciousness remains haunted by vanished pasts. It clings to habits that have been repurposed by new demagogues, pushes back against the myriad new freedoms on offer, and maintains forms of inner obedience as protection against a headlong rush into an unknown future.
Freedom and Its Discontents
One of the most interesting observers of our inner reluctance to accept the acceleration of history is Lea Ypi, an Albanian-born political theorist who teaches at the London School of Economics. Her 2021 book Free made her famous, in part because of its ironic and ambiguous one-word title, which implied that one freedom – within her childhood home and among her vividly remembered parents and friends –was lost when the communist regime collapsed and the chaotic new “freedom” of the West prevailed.
Through a mordantly comic and ironic retelling of her childhood in the collapsing communist “paradise” of Enver Hoxha, who ruled Albania for 41 years, Ypi put a question mark after the word freedom itself, stripping it of the self-congratulatory insularity of the West’s post-Cold War narrative. She revealed both what was lost when this freedom came and what was violent, rapacious, and corrupt about its arrival. Yet as Ypi herself understood when she left to study philosophy in Rome and later completed her doctorate at the European University Institute in Florence, once Western freedom arrived, there was no going back.
Is it any surprise that this editorial at The Economist begins with Left Wing hysteria mongering? This as the West finds itself covered in the soot of the Neo-Liberal delusion that turned to ash? The failure of Neo-Liberalism demands further Neo-Liberal ‘reforms’, so goes the Party Line of the apologists for that exhausted,demonstrably failed political/economic mirage. See Philip Mirowski’s Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste for the dismal history of the Neo-Liberal Thought Collective’s mendacious ascendency and staying power:
The fact that the Germans were bailed out four times in the 20th Century 1924, 1929, 1932 and 1953. What bearing might that have on the Left Wing hysteria mongering at the Economist, and the issue of the Greeks and debt forgiveness? And/or a range of other options, open to EU technocrats, in alliance with the Greeks, to first and foremost alleviate the suffering of Greek citizens, as the primary issue, not the rescue of the Neo-Liberal delusion in it’s various iterations! But the alleviation of the suffering of the Greeks is utterly antithetical to the whole of the Neo-Liberal Project: civic good is in direct opposition to the argued ‘value’ of Markets and Market Discipline!
StephenKMackSD's Blog 