I choose the word rabble carefully. It is defined as a disorderly crowd, a mob. It is a dangerous thing. But it has one very strong quality. It has energy. On its own a rabble has no direction. The direction for that energy comes from the person(s) the rabble identifies as its leader(s). Good leaders can turn that energy in a positive direction while alleviating the sources of the rabble's discontent. Bad leaders simply feed that discontent and lack the ability to turn the rabble's energy into something constructive.
We have two rabbles in America. One in each party and one at each end of the political spectrum. The one on the left is more ideologically coherent and better able to articulate its discontents. But the one on the right is larger and stronger, both in recent years and historically in American politics. It is the one whose discontents are more likely to resonate with the larger electorate, certainly in recent years and probably over a longer period. It is also the one that better fits other definitions sometimes given to the word rabble: ordinary people, regarded as socially or intellectually inferior.
Rabbles have a long history. I've been reading English history lately and they have at times played a powerful role in that country's history. Sometimes a very constructive role.
Unfortunately, rabbles are not very rational when it comes to choosing their leadership. The choices often seem to have an element that can be characterized as "accidental." The rabble on the right made a very poor choice in 2016. The optimist in me still holds out hope that it will eventually find leadership or accidentally happen upon leadership that can make constructive use of its discontent. But first the choice made in the 2016 will have to be purged from its system. Rabbles are capable of learning. Not quickly. But if the evidence of having made a bad choice is dramatic enough, they do learn.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hawk
