Bit of a late reply, these are long articles. Thanks for sharing the links.
I disagree with your characterisation of these articles. You arguing that he’s completely discarding the science is completely fair, but what isn’t fair is to characterise the article of arguing in favour of Right economic policy or social Darwinism. Both articles but primarily the Corona article is rooted in human-centric rhetoric. The article makes constant references to unequal sacrifice being asked of poorer people, and both articles to me seem to be concerned with limiting upwards money transfer, not glorify it. These articles are neither economic right nor social right. They’re completely consistent with left-libertarian views. Absolutely onboard with calling libertarians dumb-asses, but reich-wing is inaccurate.
Bit of a late reply, these are long articles. Thanks for sharing the links.
I disagree with your characterisation of these articles. You arguing that he’s completely discarding the science is completely fair, but what isn’t fair is to characterise the article of arguing in favour of Right economic policy or social Darwinism. Both articles but primarily the Corona article is rooted in human-centric rhetoric. The article makes constant references to unequal sacrifice being asked of poorer people, and both articles to me seem to be concerned with limiting upwards money transfer, not glorify it. These articles are neither economic right nor social right. They’re completely consistent with left-libertarian views. Absolutely onboard with calling libertarians dumb-asses, but reich-wing is inaccurate.
Edit: Fixed typo.
Also very fair points. Maybe I jumped the gun, though I’m still very suspicious of Blumenthal, this analysis makes sense.