Professor Michael Hudson on the US elections

An interview conducted a short while ago (but still relevant) with Professor of economics Michael Hudson on the unpalatable choice facing America in the elections. He is something of an unorthodox thinker and very critical of mainstream economics (always appealing to me). He favoured Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils and as a relatively ‘blank slate’, someone who can oppose neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Oh well, now it’s happened. Let’s hope that some good will come.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Professor Michael Hudson on the US elections

  1. I like Hudson, his propensity for melodrama notwithstanding. Like dogmatism, melodrama has its good uses when administered in proper dose.

    Hudson points to serious problems that, I feel, do exist. However, no system is perfect, hence the aspect of corrigibility and control by regime change assumes greater weight in my reckoning than the insinuation of perfection. It is in this light that I tend to judge Trump’s success: of whatever quality his performance as a president will turn out to be, he has mobilised a movement comprising millions of people that did no longer feel represented by the parties; he has succeeded against the Democrats and his own party, and as a consequence, it has become possible to attack political correctness and the status quo more adamantly and more effectively than this has been the case in a long time.

    Just think of his announcement to start a kind of New Deal.

    For a democracy to remain viable, it is essential for it to be able to expedite upheavals every once in a while, especially when the political system has lost its ability to recognise and attenuate the great existential worries of large parts of the population.

    I have written more on the election here: http://quaesivi.blogspot.de/2016/11/president-trump-victory-for-democracy.html

    • Thanks for your comment and link to your post. If Trump can really turn around the fortunes of the working class with a New Deal, that’s all to the good. His rhetoric on women and minorities, is surely worrying, but it’s difficult to know what sort of president he will be. Maybe it was all just talk for the sake of the campaign. For me, it was a big shame that the Democrats had someone so establishment, and who wasn’t a great campaigner. Also, as ever in US elections, turnout, while higher than usual, remained low. More than 40% of eligible voters don’t bother. If they did, who knows what sort of country America could be?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s