The New Bafflement

.
In a recent piece, the former Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair (who has the distinction of having supported George W. Bush's misadventures in Iraq) says that he is baffled by the rise of Bernie Sanders in the US, and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.

In the politics of recent times, i.e. the 19th and 20th centuries, there have been two factors that would-be national elected leaders had to take into account:

What does the country need the next elected head-of-state to do?
The related question: "Am I willing to do this?" is sort of secondary.  This approach to politics is cynical in its very nature; the question is whether one can come across as less cynical than the other a$$holes.

What should I say I am in favor of, to get the largest possible number of people to support me?
This is the "electability" question that Tony Blair is raising: if either Corbyn (in Britain) or Sanders (in the USA) were to be elected, who will stand with them to push forward their agenda?  As you can see, on the face of it, this question is even more subtly cynical, since it brings up the issue of whether one is lying in order to get support.  Then, the other interesting question is this.
Before the election, every voter must ask herself: does this fellow have a chance of getting any other votes than those of a few space cadets like myself? If the answer is yes, then we consider that the candidate concerned is electable. If the answer is no, then very few will be voting for him, despite how much you may like him, and we would regard him as in-electable.
If everyone was more concerned about electability than about the attitudes, principles and character of the candidate, then it becomes an exercise in guesswork: we're merely trying to guess which candidate is likely to get the most votes, even if he's not the one we want.

This election seems unusual in that we're willing to play for high stakes.  The stakes are: if we go with continuity ("More of same"), then the banks and Big Business will get richer, and we will get poorer, and we'll be working harder for less to show for it.  Many of my friends (but not all, to be fair,) are willing to gamble on a candidate who wants to make a major change in how politics is conducted in the US, and that candidate seems to be Bernie Sanders, though for the life of me I can't see that team behind him enabling him to achieve his goals if he were to get into office.  We don't know any of these people.  (But then, we didn't know the Obama team, nor the Clinton team before they came into office either.)

Meanwhile, there are some people of limited intelligence, it seems to me, that seem to think that what we need most is someone in the White House who will make rude remarks about foreign countries and religions other than Christianity, be willing to escalate wars in all theatres, take a belligerent posture, and help Big Business get richer than ever.  There are yet others who want to take a harsh attitude towards people of foreign origin, be hostile towards Cuba and Mexico, in order to prevent trade (and probably smuggling) across the border into the US.

The more successful the US is in its economy, its politics, the more hospitable its society, the more immigration we're going to see.  The only way to stem the tide of immigration is to become such a hell-hole that no one wants to come here.  Staunching the flow of immigrants is a finger-in-the-dike approach that wastes all our energies.  No doubt we must ensure that those who come into the US will help the society and the economy rather than be a drag on it, but that's not a good platform with which to run for the presidency.  Nor is militarism, hostility to LGBT rights, and hostility towards health care legislation, and hostility towards education.

Arch