Skip to main content

An outsider's view of Jeremy Corbyn, who is--at this instant--listlessly sinking his party's hopes.

I am not against Corbyn's ideas or his bent, but he is hopelessly ineffectual as a national politician and party leader. His ideas aren't all that bad, but his brand is, because he sucks at messaging, and is no better at corralling or convincing his partymates. He and his leadership have a dull a sense of political strategy and tactics. Arguably being right or more compassionate doesn't win you anything outside of school debates.

Supporters say Jeremy Corbin cares. Well, he can care all he likes, deeply and to his very core, but he won't be able to realize any of his ideals without a capable coalition which must be taken seriously, and not laughed out of the room.

Corbyn has faced strong opposition from some of his own party members, the Tories (previously--they are largely unconcerned with him now), and various entrenched interests. I do not suggest he has an easy road. Politics is a rough, dirty business, after all. People are going to be unfair to politicians. They always have.

If a candidate cannot deal with that, if they are better at ineffectively whining about how unfairly they've been treated... Well, that's only partly worked out for a handful of politicians: the Trumps of the world. It isn't generally a winning strategy.
When William Henry Harrison was running for POTUS, his opponents mocked him for living on the frontier. They said he had grown up in a log cabin making moonshine. This wasn't true. He was born into wealth on a vast estate. But he ran with what his opponents gave him, flipping the truth on its head to capture victory.

When George W. Bush first got into politics, he was treated as a carpetbagger and 'out-Texaned'. As a result, he decided to more thoroughly define himself as a Texan (despite his east coast, Ivy League roots), which carried him to victory upon victory. When he accepted his party's nomination for the presidency of the US, he declared on national television, "Don't mess with Texas."

Successful politicians adapt to circumstances and find ways to accomplish their goals despite inevitable set-backs and unfairness. Corbyn, on the other hand, weakly opposed Brexit and refused to campaign on it. Instead of explaining himself or changing his approach, he got angry at reporters for asking him why he was being such a milquetoast. Subsequently, Brexit barely passed.

While the Tories were running around in confusion, Labour quickly pulled out its knives and began to stab itself in the back repeatedly, without any effort to aim even one blow against the Conservatives or even the far-right UKIP.

Labour could not have been handed better opportunities than they have in recent years. Instead of going on the offensive with a united story, Corbyn's party has managed to translate that into their own illegitimacy and irrelevancy, through backstabbing and incompetence. And, if the polls are even close to correct, they're about to become more of an afterthought than a real opposition party.


Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Well now.

I think I'm going to try to revive my online writing habits, outside of Facebook.

And what have I been thinking or feeling in the interim, across the last couple years or so? Well, I'm glad you asked.

In part, this.