There is a new institutional consensus: how do we understand it in its own terms? Not the terms of its critics. Not the terms with which it explains itself to the public. I know how to do both of those. What I don’t understand is how it thinks when talking behind closed doors.
That's the cool part. It doesn't need the people behind closed doors to be any more cynical than they were before. They can continue serving the interests of their institution or they can spout the jargon, either one serves the consensus sufficiently.