and other very unsavory people. And I played it safe by describing him as probably not very extreme. Many observers feel he is. He has a long record of acting the apologist for violent terrorists who've murdered many. He says it's in the name of peace and tolerance, but many of the fringe elements he's drawing suggest they're taking a different message from him.
Don't look at his face, read his history and the writings of enthusiastic extremists supporting him. Both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul had very nice faces and were far too competent to endorse racism in front of TV cameras. It was their enthusiastic following of racists, anti-feminists, and other deplorables that first clued in people who hadn't examined them.
Note that it is the nature of extremists and people leaning that way, both right and left, to despise the center and to be drawn by extremist politicians. Corbyn's support includes some from the far right who rejected the Conservative Party's strong conservatism to join him on the far left, and he needs all the support he can get.
Besides the possible danger of extremists joining together to perhaps take control in future, though, is the more prosaic probable failure of government should Corbyn get power. Extremists cannot run modern liberal democracies to serve most citizens well any more than strong conservatives can. Among other necessary qualities both lack is the simple reality that neither believe in the cooperation it takes to make democratic republics work. Democracy itself is discardable whenever the wishes of the people get in their way. Instead, both groups combine arrogance with profound disinterest/contempt for anything other citizens want and need that differs from their own ideology.
Fortunately for the world, both right and left extremists combine that very dangerous lack with the ineptitude that comes of elevating ideology over reality when actually trying to govern. As I said, they usually don't stay in power long. (Strong conservatives, unfortunately, are better at that.)
I don't believe scary Corbyn should be imagined as a Brit counterpart to Bernie, but it is useful to note that, in the traditional intensive candidate interviews with the editorial boards of the NYT and WaPo, Senator Bernie amazingly could not explain in any genuine detail HOW he would implement his agenda, much of which he's promoted for decades. And the official plans his campaign did release were widely analyzed to be generally unworkable as presented, numbers all wrong, conclusions without basis, some things congress wouldn't get behind no matter how many seats we won, etc. He was sure about the what and they'd decide on the how once he was in office, he told them.
When ideology rules and reality won't cooperate, the next step for ideologues who've gotten power is getting reality out of their way. As you'll recall, when nearly 4 million more people voted for his opponent, Bernie tried to talk the superdelegates into making him the Democratic Party nominee--as he'd promised his supporters he would all along if needed. Perfectly legal but nevertheless a mild example of what I'm talking about.
Many very frustrated and angry people are relieved to see in people like Corbyn signs of a strong leader they can depend on not to compromise. Okay, that is what they want, but they also need to examine the whole package they're buying, make sure the rest is what they really want too, not just thrill to some inspiring speeches. Or as the old phrase that came to us from England puts it, they're like to come home by weeping cross. To me, the increased support by potentially dangerous people for candidate Corbyn-of-the-nice-face-and-mild-manner is a flashing warning sign that England could be tilting into much worse trouble.
= new reply since forum marked as read
