But I repeat myself. Spending most of the article sarching in vain for a coherent thought, the author eventually slips in her take on the UK riots;
The failure of the markets goes hand in hand with human blight. Meanwhile, the view is gaining ground that social democracy, with its safety nets, its costly education and health care for all, is unsustainable in the bleak times ahead. The reality is that it is the only solution. After the Great Crash, Britain recalibrated, for a time. Income differentials fell, the welfare state was born and skills and growth increased.
Damn those pesky income differentials– they did it! She had to hide her editorial in ~1,000 words of mish-mash. That one paragraph would have sufficed. See; that their socialist democracy failed to crush productivity overnight in the first half of the 20th century is proof that it is good and that we need much more.
This demonstrates a couple of my old catch phrases;
The socialists are angry because the socialists in power aren’t socialist enough.
When socialism fails, freedom is to blame, and the answer is more socialism.
When the Teaparty holds a peaceful rally, advocating liberty and denouncing tyranny, leaving the rally site cleaner than they found it, they are guilty of inciting violence. When socialists riot, loot and burn, calling for revolution, it is because of the income differential– we should listen to them because they represent our future.
Meanwhile in the U.S., our Republican Party leaders, thinking themselves the oh-so-much-more-clever-than-thou pragmatists, are busy trying to figure out what it is they should pretend to believe during the upcoming election season, figuring out how to please this group, gingerly, without overly offending that group, taking polls, doing market analysis, organizing think tanks and hiring image consultants (in other words; there isn’t a shred of seriousness or principle amongst the whole lot of them).