The New York Times carries an article about Britain's Labor Party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn, a somewhat extreme leftist. Corbyn is popular among Labor's members, and has drawn new members from the far left fringes back into the party.
As the article notes, nobody knowledgable expects Labor will be able to win the next election with Corbyn at the helm. I argued some weeks or months ago that perhaps Labor's members are resigned to not winning elections and have chosen Corbyn - whose policies they truly like - as leader. (Search COTTonLINE for "Corbyn" references)
I argued they prefer Corbyn because he speaks their language, says what they want to hear. If they are going to lose anyway, why not do it led by someone whose policy preferences they admire rather than some pale imitation of a leftist who might have a better chance at garnering the votes of uncommitted Independents.
True, I'm an Anglophile. Still, you might reasonably ask why I'm troubling you over the inner workings of a party with which, as COTTonLINE readers, you (and I) have little sympathy?
I do so because I fear our Republican Party could go down the same path into irrelevancy at the presidential level. That is, choosing leaders with whom we agree, but who cannot garner a national voter majority. Down that path lies being a movement, not a political party.
