Brian, great reminder to those of us in the US about what is at stake and why the gloves must come off to gain or retain power so as to govern. The Democrats and left in the US have been too often afraid to engage in the actions that are required. It makes me crazy when I see so many Ds “turn the other cheek” or “take the high road” as it does no good in retaining or gaining the power to govern. But it also requires putting aside petty policy purity arguments as Starmer did for Labour. Look what NFP did in France yesterday to turn back La Pen
Brian, your writing fills me with joy. You make me think, you make me laugh, and you always send me down delightful rabbit holes - including Jacob Rees-Mogg (now former MP). That video of him at age 12 is … disturbing. I did read that he was gracious about losing his re-election bid, to Labour’s Dan Norris, not to Barmy Bunch. But that photo is priceless. What a wonderful tradition, having the candidates stand together while the vote counts are read. We could use something like that here, along with campaigns that, like Starmer’s, are laser-focused on *winning freakin’ elections*! What a concept.
Brian, Anne Applebaum dismissed Bernie Sanders as a "populist" when he was winning primaries and was doing better in the polls against Trump than Hillary. Corporate Democrats-centrist thinkers shut Bernie down. America might have been ready for a Bernie. Anne loves the center. While the center is better than fascism of the far right, what we consider the center-neoliberalism-corporatism is causing climate change and grotesque inequity. So, the real question is: Can the Labour Party institute policies away from neoliberalism that caused our existential crises and caused the far- right reactionary politics. Naomi Klein's Doppelganger and George Monbiot's Invisible Doctrine get at what the likes of Anne Applebaum fails to see. Without the likes of Bernie coming to power (he has power and he influenced Biden) we are left in the center with incrementalism that has us fiddling while the world burns. I believe what we have now is Corporate Totalitarianism (Sheldon Wolin) which is better than fascism...but can lead to fascism very easily. We have to accept the world as it is, but we had better see the world as it is.
Very highly recommend Sheldon S. Wolins "Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Spector of Inverted Totalitarianism"- a prescient take on where America was heading (early 2000's).
Equally highly rec. Tony Judt's " Ill fares the Land...": an excellent elaboration of how the West built healthy societies, post WW II....and how Capitalism is 'fixing that'.
(BONUS: in the Forward, Tony may well make you cry.Yes, bonus. He was stoically dying of a nasty, debilitating disease; writing his last book. As he prepares to make the journey to the ' undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveler returns...' he delivers as gracious-as grateful- a departure speech as you will ever read or hear. A very decent human being. Worth reading just for the Forward!)
Capitalism loves Democracy. The way a rapist loves women.
Thank you, Vito. I will definitely look for Tony Judt's book. Naomi Klein rejoiced when the center did not hold and the left- wing parties united to defeat the center- right and the far right in France. We have to accept the world as it is, but we had better see the world as it is. Which would have us rejoicing over the “center” (status quo) far less and preaching the “center must hold” even lessor.
Bernie most likely would have been another just magic grandpa with a lost election.
Yes New Labour and the social democrats were intellectually lazy and didn’t see the issues that needed to address but its not all Neo Liberalism which btw is another buzz word
Neoliberalism is not a buzz word. It means precisely deregulation-the growth of monopolies and oligopolies-lack of enforcing anti-trust laws and developing new anti-trust laws to deal with BIG Tech. It means lowering taxes on the rich...it means the growth of the financialization of the economy with complex instruments that enable the concentration of wealth.
Watching The Thick of It, some of which I’ve seen before. Love it. Recommending Twenty-Twelve (about planning the Olympics) and W1A. Similarly absurd and funny.
Dr. Klaas, I have three questions for you: 1) Do you think the course of British history would be significantly changed if Rory Stewart, not Boris Johnson, had been selected as Prime Minister? 2) With a Labour government, do you expect any move to change Brexit? 3) An article in the Guardian said that Starmer has authoritarian leanings. What's your thought?
Yes, probably; No, not for now other than pushing for greater regulatory alignment and tweaks to existing agreements; and no I see zero evidence that’s true.
Is it true that, as I read somewhere, the Labour vote went up only a couple of percentage points from the last election while a good chunk of the Conservative vote went to the far right (UKIP)? If so, isn't the landslide more a result of the 'first past the post' electoral system than a fundamental shift in voters preferences? The UK electorate still seems very fractured, as is the french electorate, with the far right still a very potent force in both countries. I am wondering what happened with the Corbyn faction in Labour? Did they hold their nose and vote for Labour anyway or vote for extreme left parties, or sat on their hands? I guess I could look it up. My general impression though is that the UK and french electorates agreed on what they disliked, but neither went for a moderate alternative. I am not sure we are back to a shared reality electorate.
The Labour vote wasn’t up substantially largely largely because people voted tactically (myself included). The Liberal Democrats won an astonishing number of seats and in many places where they won, Labour wasn’t viable. In some seats, it was 45% LibDem and like 4% for Labour. Many of those LibDem voters would have voted Labour if there was a viable candidate. This is what amuses me about the idea that Starmer doesn’t have a mandate. He was intelligent and ran a race to target seats, not vote share—exactly as he should have— and then gets criticised for not having a mandate. He understood the rules of the electoral system and maximized his party’s chances, which led to a landslide result. It is true that the Tories lost a lot of votes to Reform, but polling suggests the (surprising) fact that while a plurality of Reform voters defected from Conservatives, a lot of Reform voters had Labour or the Liberal Democrats as their second choice, not the Tories.
Brian, great reminder to those of us in the US about what is at stake and why the gloves must come off to gain or retain power so as to govern. The Democrats and left in the US have been too often afraid to engage in the actions that are required. It makes me crazy when I see so many Ds “turn the other cheek” or “take the high road” as it does no good in retaining or gaining the power to govern. But it also requires putting aside petty policy purity arguments as Starmer did for Labour. Look what NFP did in France yesterday to turn back La Pen
Taking the high road does no good if it leads to a cliff.
"The hard truth is that American voters no longer inhabit a shared reality."
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
" Post-truth is pre-fascism"
- Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny
All true; all dangerous to American democracy.
Brian, your writing fills me with joy. You make me think, you make me laugh, and you always send me down delightful rabbit holes - including Jacob Rees-Mogg (now former MP). That video of him at age 12 is … disturbing. I did read that he was gracious about losing his re-election bid, to Labour’s Dan Norris, not to Barmy Bunch. But that photo is priceless. What a wonderful tradition, having the candidates stand together while the vote counts are read. We could use something like that here, along with campaigns that, like Starmer’s, are laser-focused on *winning freakin’ elections*! What a concept.
Brian, Anne Applebaum dismissed Bernie Sanders as a "populist" when he was winning primaries and was doing better in the polls against Trump than Hillary. Corporate Democrats-centrist thinkers shut Bernie down. America might have been ready for a Bernie. Anne loves the center. While the center is better than fascism of the far right, what we consider the center-neoliberalism-corporatism is causing climate change and grotesque inequity. So, the real question is: Can the Labour Party institute policies away from neoliberalism that caused our existential crises and caused the far- right reactionary politics. Naomi Klein's Doppelganger and George Monbiot's Invisible Doctrine get at what the likes of Anne Applebaum fails to see. Without the likes of Bernie coming to power (he has power and he influenced Biden) we are left in the center with incrementalism that has us fiddling while the world burns. I believe what we have now is Corporate Totalitarianism (Sheldon Wolin) which is better than fascism...but can lead to fascism very easily. We have to accept the world as it is, but we had better see the world as it is.
Very highly recommend Sheldon S. Wolins "Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Spector of Inverted Totalitarianism"- a prescient take on where America was heading (early 2000's).
Equally highly rec. Tony Judt's " Ill fares the Land...": an excellent elaboration of how the West built healthy societies, post WW II....and how Capitalism is 'fixing that'.
(BONUS: in the Forward, Tony may well make you cry.Yes, bonus. He was stoically dying of a nasty, debilitating disease; writing his last book. As he prepares to make the journey to the ' undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveler returns...' he delivers as gracious-as grateful- a departure speech as you will ever read or hear. A very decent human being. Worth reading just for the Forward!)
Capitalism loves Democracy. The way a rapist loves women.
Thank you, Vito. I will definitely look for Tony Judt's book. Naomi Klein rejoiced when the center did not hold and the left- wing parties united to defeat the center- right and the far right in France. We have to accept the world as it is, but we had better see the world as it is. Which would have us rejoicing over the “center” (status quo) far less and preaching the “center must hold” even lessor.
Bernie most likely would have been another just magic grandpa with a lost election.
Yes New Labour and the social democrats were intellectually lazy and didn’t see the issues that needed to address but its not all Neo Liberalism which btw is another buzz word
Neoliberalism is not a buzz word. It means precisely deregulation-the growth of monopolies and oligopolies-lack of enforcing anti-trust laws and developing new anti-trust laws to deal with BIG Tech. It means lowering taxes on the rich...it means the growth of the financialization of the economy with complex instruments that enable the concentration of wealth.
Watching The Thick of It, some of which I’ve seen before. Love it. Recommending Twenty-Twelve (about planning the Olympics) and W1A. Similarly absurd and funny.
True, and if the Clinton II campaign had paid more attention to Michigan we might not even have had Trump 1
Lovely piece. Lovely picture of Jake. Did Zorro enjoy the day?
Love, love, love The Thick of It! Such creative cursing and insults. Thanks for the recommendation.
Dr. Klaas, I have three questions for you: 1) Do you think the course of British history would be significantly changed if Rory Stewart, not Boris Johnson, had been selected as Prime Minister? 2) With a Labour government, do you expect any move to change Brexit? 3) An article in the Guardian said that Starmer has authoritarian leanings. What's your thought?
Yes, probably; No, not for now other than pushing for greater regulatory alignment and tweaks to existing agreements; and no I see zero evidence that’s true.
Is it true that, as I read somewhere, the Labour vote went up only a couple of percentage points from the last election while a good chunk of the Conservative vote went to the far right (UKIP)? If so, isn't the landslide more a result of the 'first past the post' electoral system than a fundamental shift in voters preferences? The UK electorate still seems very fractured, as is the french electorate, with the far right still a very potent force in both countries. I am wondering what happened with the Corbyn faction in Labour? Did they hold their nose and vote for Labour anyway or vote for extreme left parties, or sat on their hands? I guess I could look it up. My general impression though is that the UK and french electorates agreed on what they disliked, but neither went for a moderate alternative. I am not sure we are back to a shared reality electorate.
The Labour vote wasn’t up substantially largely largely because people voted tactically (myself included). The Liberal Democrats won an astonishing number of seats and in many places where they won, Labour wasn’t viable. In some seats, it was 45% LibDem and like 4% for Labour. Many of those LibDem voters would have voted Labour if there was a viable candidate. This is what amuses me about the idea that Starmer doesn’t have a mandate. He was intelligent and ran a race to target seats, not vote share—exactly as he should have— and then gets criticised for not having a mandate. He understood the rules of the electoral system and maximized his party’s chances, which led to a landslide result. It is true that the Tories lost a lot of votes to Reform, but polling suggests the (surprising) fact that while a plurality of Reform voters defected from Conservatives, a lot of Reform voters had Labour or the Liberal Democrats as their second choice, not the Tories.