Meta-theoretical concerns aside, it seems like there should be a recognition that in any objective sense the condition of a single mother forced to take a job that provides  a wage (perhaps) 60% of the poverty level is not in any way equivalent to work that grants pay and benefits that allow the worker to participate fully in the economic, social, and political life of the nation.

I think debunking the old mythology and creating a new one is very much what we should be about - hence the provisional Free Market Unicorn scoop, which I hope will do exactly that.

The point is that the mythology is - quite possibly deliberately and consciously - slanted and biased politically.

There are various angles of attack:

1. Debunking by evidence (the theories rarely work as stated)

2. Debunking by assertion of authority (this is exactly how they're created in the first place, and it's enough to turn the game around and simply state they're discredited often enough in the correct social register without having to do a great deal more)

3. Debunking by mud slinging (nasty, but effective)

4. Debunking by exposure of bias (point out who benefits, and optionally also who funds the 'research')

5. Debunking by argument and engagement (the most work, and probably the least effective because the goal posts will always be moved)

All that's happened is that the approved narrative has changed from 'Weak Europe' to 'Out of control Europe'.

It should be simple enough to turn this around and point out that free-market policies result in the kind of financial disaster that's crippling the US - etc.

The key point isn't really to clock the facts correctly, it's to match the slightly condescending tone that the right always uses.

I suspect the combination of the tone with a checklist of pre-chewed sound-bite narrative hit points is far more influential than the facts ever are.