There is certainly a degree to which a political leader is not responsible for their followers. Any political movement is going to gather about it a few folk of dubious qualities.
But when a candidate is (a) collecting huge swathes of folk who ordinarily would be shunned as holding truly ugly opinions, and (b) declines to reject support from them and their ilk, then the candidate in question has to start taking the heat for encouraging, if not depending or even allying with them.
Take, for example, Donald Trump.
This, in turn, should give the supporters of that candidate who are not racist, sexist, xenophobic yahoos a certain amount of pause. Their reasons for supporting the candidate may seem perfectly legitimate and comparable to any other political race. But do they really want a candidate who draws so much support from people one presumes they, too, reject? Do they really want those folk to feel like their cause has been justified by that candidate winning? At what point does lying down with dogs mean getting up with fleas?
This horde of neo-Nazis, KKK, and other extremist leaders all openly backing Trump is chilling
Trump has not disavowed any of them.
Or, put differently: https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/778741953101832192
"If you're equally disgusted at the prospect of voting for either candidate, remember that all of the white supremacists picked the same one."
I was stunned by the number of people on my Twitter feed especially who self-identified as “deplorable.” Clinton was clear there are two baskets among Trump supporters, the deplorables, and the hurting who deserve sympathy and care. Clinton said:
Why would so many claim to be among the deplorables, when they could just as easily say THEY have been burned by government and the economy, and they want justice?
So I engaged many of them. Takes an average of three Tweets before they begin railing on race, gender, or other issues of justice where their views tend to parallel the Third Reich’s policies more than rationality.
Damn. She outed them.