It is surprising how much Mr. Tanenhaus’ Neo-Liberal equivocations/self-apologetics reminds this reader of David Brooks sociologically garnished chatter. Mr. Brooks defends a sclerotic Conservatism/Neo-Conservatism, Tanenhaus defends an equally sclerotic Neo-Liberalism: and his means of attack against Sen. Sanders is to charge him with the crime of being as ‘… bracingly ascetic in the manner of the old revolutionaries.’ You get it, he’s throwback to the Bolsheviks.
Now the editors at The Economist, in their war against backbencher and or Left Wing arriviste Jeremy Corbyn, were much more effective propagandists. They illustrated one of their polemics against Corbyn, by re-purposing an old Socialist Realist Painting, from the early Soviet period, a portrait of Lenin addressing the New Men and Women of The Revolution, by superimposing the Union Jack and the head of Corbyn into the image and produced a ‘new’ image, a ‘new’ piece of usable anti-Corbyn political propaganda: redolent of Anti-communism’s attack on Soviet Socialist Realism as kitsch and the Cult of Personality, as a present political reality in British civic life.
Mr. Tanenhaus doesn’t have the imagination, the skill, the resources, to execute such a bold act of appropriation/reinvention. So instead we are served a potted history of failed dissidents as object lessons. Sen. Sanders has been corrupted by power, almost?