One of the most frustrating aspects of the recent shenanigans in Toronto and Ottawa is the indefatigable support of the so-called base. In Toronto, it goes by the annoying and narcissistic name Ford Nation, but the concept is the same: a group of followers who seem blindly loyal and unfazed by scandal.

I have had several conversations in recent days that begin the same way: “Back in my day, politicians would do the honourable thing and resign—what’s wrong with politicians today?” It's a fine question and a good point, except we’re not talking about politicians in the same sense. Instead, we are talking about leaders of a movement.

In traditional party politics, leaders concern themselves with keeping the leadership of the party and achieving power. The first priority—keeping the leadership of the party—is an exercise in purity: is the leader good example of what the party represents and can we trust them? With the leaders of a movement, this hardly matters.

Of course, the Conservative Party of Canada and the quasi-party Ford Nation have some traditional assumptions about leadership, but the primary question is whether the leader represents the views of the base. More-or-less full stop. Personal qualities matter less, and even possessing the assumed skill set of a modern political leader (charisma!) seems irrelevant.

Back over in the traditional parties, we see examples of purity in politics. If there is a Liberal ‘brand’ then it is about who can accurately represent the party’s sense of itself, but mostly it is about purity. Stéphane Dion may not have been the most compelling leader, but his environmental chops fit the notion of a man of deep integrity. Michael Ignatieff—public intellectual and citizen of the world—also fit perfectly with the Liberal’s sense of themselves. Bob Rae, not so much. He started his elected career with the NDP, is therefore impure, and could never be the leader. Now the party has found precious DNA from the past, we see the ultimate example of purity.

For the members of a movement—and the ‘base’ that we constantly hear about—all that matters is the ability to move a certain agenda forward. Do their leaders make bad choices, either in the company they keep or in who they appoint to the Senate? It hardly matters. What matters is the final statement that comes after the latest apology or denial: “Now let me get back to work.” That is code for ‘the base sent me here to do one thing, and you are getting in my way.’

Sadly for the rest of us, the things that are ‘getting in the way’ are not limited to questions from the media. It seems to include the courts, public opinion, and perhaps even the rule-of-law. Leaders representing the ‘base’ don’t think like normal politicians, balancing the good of the party with the good of the country. They only follow the good of the agenda.