notes.inqk

One of the things you notice, travelling around the country talking to people about economics, is that young people in particular feel they are living in an economic system rather than a political one. They think about jobs and paying the rent and whether they will ever own a home and, increasingly, about student debt, and they don’t see politics as having anything to say to them about those issues. That’s because the economics are the same irrespective of which political party is in charge.

At some point start­ing in the Seven­ties, the gay com­mu­ni­ty woke up and wouldn’t take it any more, and they’ve won a lot of their fight­s. The pow­ers that be re­al­ized, first, that it was stupid and in­de­fen­si­ble to dis­crim­i­nate against peo­ple for be­ing born that way; and sec­ond (more im­por­tan­t) it wouldn’t cost them any­thing to stop dis­crim­i­nat­ing. Which is why, ob­vi­ous­ly, it’s eas­i­er to ad­dress the is­sues of small­er fac­tions like the LGBTQer­s, than the big race and gen­der pow­er is­sues, which you can’t touch with­out ma­jor eco­nom­ic dis­lo­ca­tion.

Co-opting the language and posture of grievance is how members of a privileged class express their belief that the way they live shouldn't have to change, that their opponents are hypocrites and perhaps even the real oppressors.

All spurned lovers want to describe their hurt to the people who left them. That’s the only audience that matters.

Obviously, the circumstances in Iraq and Iran are different. And smart people may offer smart explanations for why the demand for capitulation that proved so disastrous in America’s dealings with Iraq is well-suited to America’s dealings with the country on Iraq’s eastern border. My point is merely this: These people should be required to offer those explanations. If a politician or pundit demanded the deregulation of Wall Street, talk-show hosts would ask why doing so wouldn’t provoke another financial crisis. If a politician or pundit demanded equipping America’s police with military-style equipment, talk-show hosts would ask why doing so wouldn’t provoke another Ferguson. Yet when it comes to Iran, the debate is almost entirely a la carte.

_Q&A_ [a political debate programme aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation] aims to provide a high-quality forum for public debate on major issues, but its treatment is necessarily summary, brief and oppositional (“putting both sides” being a survival imperative for the national broadcaster). This may do much to stir up public opinion, but it rarely contributes to any kind of substantive public understanding.

[My] constant proposal to the Troika was very simple: let us agree on three or four important reforms that we agree upon, like the tax system, like VAT, and let’s implement them immediately. And you relax the restrictions on liqiuidity from the ECB. You want a comprehensive agreement – let’s carry on negotiating – and _in the meantime_ let us introduce these reforms in parliament by agreement between us and you. And they said “No, no, no, this has to be a comprehensive review. Nothing will be implemented if you dare introduce any legislation. It will be considered unilateral action inimical to the process of reaching an agreement.” And then of course a few months later they would leak to the media that we had not reformed the country and that we were wasting time! And so… [chuckles] we were set up, in a sense, in an important sense.