Yes, of course Louis Farrakhan as Defence Secretary is not serious serious, but it’s the kind of thing that Phillip Adams might write to make a point, (perhaps a stupid one) rather than because he was sending himself up.

I realise that on any reading the article is not serious in the sense that it is seriously proposing that Louis Farrakhan should seriously be considered as Defence Secretary. But the thing that bothers me is that the Atlantic Monthly is not a flip mag. It’s the kind of mag that, one would expect would clearly telegraph any spoof that it ran.

Just as Abraham Lincoln[!!] condemned America for its grave sins while calling for the nation to live up to its highest ideals, Wright’s willingness to forcefully attack American injustice doesn’t mean he believes the country is beyond redemption. As a pastor with long experience in a distressed corner of the country, he would bring a unique perspective to Washington. In foreign policy, he would align America’s interests with those of revolutionary states in the Third World [ie Venezuala and Burma], perhaps [code for certainly not] shaking up the geopolitical environment in constructive ways. Wright’s trusted comrade Louis Farrakhan [damnation by association] might play a key role, perhaps as defense secretary [If the author is serious, by this point, he is somewhat madder than a march hare].

I’d suggest that the co-author of a book on “how the Republicans can win the working class and save the American Dream” shouldn’t be taken too seriously when he’s suggesting interesting candidates for the Democrats to run. Regardless of whether he’s writing in earnest.

Nick, this, together with your Maureen Dowd-deafness, establishes your credentials as a purveyor of the dismal science. So for future ref, if it looks like a joke, it most likely is.

But I think you might have made this comment on the wrong thread.

Anyway I hope life is treating you well Maurie.

Regards
Maurie Joyce