But will the 'nasties' shrivel under the gaze of the mutitude?

In my previous post I speculated on the rise, or not, of the 'nasties', that is, those glib demagogues capable of leading a mass movement into mischief - or murder - depending!  Of course, I look back and think immediately of Lenin and Hitler.  One interesting facet shared by both of them was that they never led a majority party until they had seized power.  It was only necessary for them to win over a sizeable minority, just big enough to lever open the doors to power.  However, to remind you that it was a very different world back then is to state the 'bleedin' obvious' in capital letters!  Today, there are forces at work which the demagogues of old never had to face.

I have been made all too aware of this by the current campaign for the Republican party presidential nomination.  It has been a classic example of an election campaign in this 21st century.  Under the unblinking eyes of the TV lenses the various candidates have endured a seemingly endless series of debates with each other until they must yearn for the good old days when all they had to do was kiss a few babies and make the same speech 100 times at differnt cities.  I have almost lost count of how many of the presidential hopefuls have led the race in the opinion polls only to falter under the combined attack of the MSM and the internet.  They wriggle like lab rats but there is no escape and bit by bit their flaws are exposed.  It's a rough and ready business but no-one can deny its efficacy.  In fact, post-Obama (especially post-Obama), perhaps it is dawning on more and more people that there are no perfect men - or women - and dreams of a great saviour, dare I say - The One - must be confined to Disney and/or The West Wing!  If indeed that is a lesson that has been learned it is one of great importance indicating, as it would do, that the public, or some of them, are beginning to understand politics.

 All this makes life exceedingly difficult for the evil demagogue who must share with the ordinary 'scurvy politicans' the unrelenting investigation and questioning of every part of their lives with any exposed faults sent round the globe at the speed of light.  However, even if I am right, that still leaves the ground, or at least, the undergrowth, free for the outright terrorist 'nasties' to chance their arm.  Oddly enough I do not fear them in general terms because the sophistication of modern security techniques gives the advantage to the authorities which is why no terrorist organisation has ever succeeded in over-throwing a western government.  There is a possible exception to this comfortable view and that is the possibility that one of these days some group will lay hands on chemical or biological weapons but even in that desperate case it is unlikely that a handfull of fanatics will overthrow a state.

So I leave you with a surprisingly comforting conclusion, albeit, a somewhat depressing one.  I don't think the 'nasties' will take over but that means we shall have to put up with the incompetent, lying liars we have at the moment.  Oh God  . . .

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

Potential leaders are now subjected to such scrutiny that it is currently difficult to find anyone whose past can pass muster. Facebook and other social media mean that youthful indiscretions are there for all to see. The Bullingdon photo has haunted Cameron, and Clegg is famous for having known "more than thirty" ladies. (In fact, that's all I can remember about the preening nonentity.) You yourself are doing your bit to remind your public about Huhne's "lesbian turning" and fondness for green piffle.....

So yes, we are stuck with the incompetent lying liars because no genuinely fresh ideas can thrive in such a hostile media environment. The danger is of endless mediocrity and deadlock, rather than the likes of Mosley (Oswald, not his pervy offspring) galvanising the nation.

Depressing, maybe, but not as scary.

[H]

One (possibly minor) difference between Hit. and Len. is that Lenin never bothered with electoral politics (and indeed managed to lose an election held after the October revolution). The Nazis, although they never won outright, had been the largest party for a year or so before the seizure of power.

Another would be that H. took over a functioning government whereas L. stepped in where the existing order had more or less completely collapsed.

I don't draw any conclusions for today from this!

[David Duff]

Yes, I admit my chosen analogy was rather facile, all I meant to stress was that overwhelming popularity is not necessary for the evil demagogue.

I should add also that my remarks are aimed at the well-established western democracies. The 'new kids on the block' may have lessons yet to be learned.

Also, it occurred to me last night that in some ways Churchill qualified as a demagogue in the '30s but fortunately 'he was our sort of demagogue, old boy'!

[A K Haart]

"If indeed that is a lesson that has been learned it is one of great importance indicating, as it would do, that the public, or some of them, are beginning to understand politics."

I think you are right and the people we should now fear are the tireless grinders, those who take away our freedoms bit by bit.

[David Duff]

I can only 'hope' I am right, AK!

[H]

If Churchill was a demagogue, he wasn't an enormously successful one, in the sense that he won only one general election (1951) and that by the skin of his teeth when he was well past his best.

I think his attachment to old fashioned liberalism and fair play rather rule him out as a demagogue - 'our sort of demagogue', perhaps indeed.

[David Duff]

Of course, you're quite right, 'H', but his habit of posing ultra simply solutions to complex problems plus his oratory gives him a flavour.