33.3 %
33.3 %
33.3 %
- Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:19 am
#569633
We all know there are loads of people who could do a better job than JC. And a fair few who could do so and be more or less as left wing. He’s inconsistent, misses easy goals, is fickle and thus frequently absent when a topic doesn’t suit, selective on dealing with bigotry, selective on which wars he thinks are bad, grumpy etc - he’s a terrible leader for a modern party (and that doesn’t mean he has to be a slick operator, but not behaving like questions he doesn’t like are an affront to his office like someone from 1920 is absurd).
But the fans all bought into this. Being shit with the press is sticking it to the MSM. The selective behaviour is all conspiracy. The inconsistency is JC playing a game so long there is no end.
Thinking of who else could lead required examination of what makes a good leader. And when you do that objectively, you cannot fail to see how poor Corbyn has been. And then you have to question your whole belief system. So the only replacement must not burst the fragile bubble of belief, and thus everyone is dismissed - there’s always a problem, or a flaw, or a question mark, regardless of the myriad flaws, issues and question marks around the incumbent.
The question can never be satisfactorily answered, because the only acceptable answer to the real question being asked of ‘who - regardless of his dreadfulness as a leader - is the best person at being Jeremy Corbyn?’ is ‘Jeremy Corbyn’.
Thing is, I think when members of the fan club ask that question, there’s also an unspoken extra element. It’s not ‘who could do better than Corbyn?’, it’s ‘who could do better than Corbyn and be nigh-on identical while doing so?’
We all know there are loads of people who could do a better job than JC. And a fair few who could do so and be more or less as left wing. He’s inconsistent, misses easy goals, is fickle and thus frequently absent when a topic doesn’t suit, selective on dealing with bigotry, selective on which wars he thinks are bad, grumpy etc - he’s a terrible leader for a modern party (and that doesn’t mean he has to be a slick operator, but not behaving like questions he doesn’t like are an affront to his office like someone from 1920 is absurd).
But the fans all bought into this. Being shit with the press is sticking it to the MSM. The selective behaviour is all conspiracy. The inconsistency is JC playing a game so long there is no end.
Thinking of who else could lead required examination of what makes a good leader. And when you do that objectively, you cannot fail to see how poor Corbyn has been. And then you have to question your whole belief system. So the only replacement must not burst the fragile bubble of belief, and thus everyone is dismissed - there’s always a problem, or a flaw, or a question mark, regardless of the myriad flaws, issues and question marks around the incumbent.
The question can never be satisfactorily answered, because the only acceptable answer to the real question being asked of ‘who - regardless of his dreadfulness as a leader - is the best person at being Jeremy Corbyn?’ is ‘Jeremy Corbyn’.
Abernathy liked this
- By Malcolm Armsteen
- By lord_kobel