There is a discussion on another thread about what constitutes the "far left" as distinguished from the "center left".
IMHO there is a small far left fringe in the US represented by groups like the Progressive Labor Party and other minor political parties calling themselves "communist" or "socialist".
In most Western countries Senator Sanders of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez might be considered "left" but no one would call them "far left". Most members of the Democratic Party would be considered "center-left" and I would concur with that. I guess I would consider Democratic Sen. Manchin "centrist" and might put Republican Senator Susan Collins in that category. There may still be some "establishment" Republicans who are "center-right" , perhaps Mitt Romney, but most are just plain "Right". But there are a few who are "far-right". Remember those who proposed forming an "Anglo-Saxon" caucus.
Anyway this deserves its own discussion and I am interested in opinions other than my own. (Which distinguishes me from the originator of that other thread)
There is a discussion on another thread about what constitutes the "far left" as distinguished from the "center left".
IMHO there is a small far left fringe in the US represented by groups like the Progressive Labor Party and other minor political parties calling themselves "communist" or "socialist".
In most Western countries Senator Sanders of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez might be considered "left" but no one would call them "far left". Most members of the Democratic Party would be considered "center-left" and I would concur with that. I guess I would consider Democratic Sen. Manchin "centrist" and might put Republican Senator Susan Collins in that category. There may still be some "establishment" Republicans who are "center-right" , perhaps Mitt Romney, but most are just plain "Right". But there are a few who are "far-right". Remember those who proposed forming an "Anglo-Saxon" caucus.
Anyway this deserves its own discussion and I am interested in opinions other than my own. (Which distinguishes me from the originator of that other thread)
In most European countries, Joe Manchin would be a conservative. All Republicans would be very conservative and a not insignificant number of GOP members of Congress would be considered far-right.
People like AOC and Bernie would be just left of center. There isn't a single member of the U.S. Congress who would be thought of as "far-left" in most of Europe.
All labels are context dependent, and helpful or unhelpful in relation to the question you're trying to answer. If you're asking "within the contours of modern political democracy, where do most posters on MOL lie" then I'd say the range starts from about the center-left (the bulk of posters here) extending to the fascist-adjacent authoritarian right (the OP of the "other thread"). If you're asking "how do I, as a Biden voter who nonetheless wants to make sure no one mistakes mistakes me for a run of the mill MOL poster, distinguish myself", the "far left" label can be useful.
Personally, I try not to get too worked up over all this. My posts are here for anyone to read and to slot into whatever category they find useful for their own personal use.
For myself, the only political labels I find useful in our present moment are "believes in democracy" and "Trumpist."
personally I'm not insulted if someone wants to label me "far left". It's just stupid, because it ignores a whole lot of people and points of view that generally get ignored by the beltway punditry. I think words and definitions are important if we want to have serious and productive discussions. Pretending that there are no ideas to the left of Elizabeth Warren ("capitalist to my bones") is being willfully blind and ignorant.
In most European countries, Joe Manchin would be a conservative. All Republicans would be very conservative and a not insignificant number of GOP members of Congress would be considered far-right.
People like AOC and Bernie would be just left of center. There isn't a single member of the U.S. Congress who would be thought of as "far-left" in most of Europe.
If "left" in politics implies a challenge to the social order, then someone like Ocasio-Cortez is already "left" simply by being who she is, even before you start getting into any actual policy positions.
May I ask if the general consensus here allows for a considered, swinging approach? Someone who prefers to take time to study each issue afresh, and with new information as it comes in rather than interpreting it from a fixed political stance?
I’ll admit it makes me a real nuisance on surveys.
May I ask if the general consensus here allows for a considered, swinging approach? Someone who prefers to take time to study each issue afresh, and with new information as it comes in rather than interpreting it from a fixed political stance?
I’ll admit it makes me a real nuisance on surveys.
I should hope so, as that's always been my philosophy.
There is a discussion on another thread about what constitutes the "far left" as distinguished from the "center left".
IMHO there is a small far left fringe in the US represented by groups like the Progressive Labor Party and other minor political parties calling themselves "communist" or "socialist".
In most Western countries Senator Sanders of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez might be considered "left" but no one would call them "far left". Most members of the Democratic Party would be considered "center-left" and I would concur with that. I guess I would consider Democratic Sen. Manchin "centrist" and might put Republican Senator Susan Collins in that category. There may still be some "establishment" Republicans who are "center-right" , perhaps Mitt Romney, but most are just plain "Right". But there are a few who are "far-right". Remember those who proposed forming an "Anglo-Saxon" caucus.
Anyway this deserves its own discussion and I am interested in opinions other than my own. (Which distinguishes me from the originator of that other thread)
If you’re considering classifications of far left, center left, center right, and far right, or even far left, left, center left, center right, right, and far right, one has to consider electoral materiality. Each of those four/six classifications has a material share of the electorate, as well as political leaders with influence and viable chances to win elections. Fringe / radical groups have neither, and thus shouldn’t be factored in.
For example, I’m seeing the Democratic socialist party in the U.S. has 92k members, and the communist party has <10k members. Presumably there are even fewer anarchists. So that’s like 100k, maybe 100k and change, far-far left radicals in a country with a population of 328 million. Immaterial.
My point is — it is a specious argument to say someone isn’t far left because further left exists, when that further left is electorally immaterial.
If you’re considering classifications of far left, center left, center right, and far right, or even far left, left, center left, center right, right, and far right, one has to consider
On its own terms, this seems like a possible end, when it comes to considering classifications: “Hey, look at that. If I’m this far left (or right) of the American political center, it gives me a rough idea of how much more persuasive I and people like me need to be if we want to move that 6” line on a Made in America ruler.”
Individually, we can all consider ourselves politically reasonable and not much left or right of center, and object or not even care if someone tells us we’re deluding ourselves. But if we wanted to sway and motivate others, indifference to how they’d label us would be a handicap, I’d think.
On its own terms, this seems like a possible end, when it comes to considering classifications: “Hey, look at that. If I’m this far left (or right) of the American political center, it gives me a rough idea of how much more persuasive I and people like me need to be if we want to move that 6” line on a Made in America ruler.”
Individually, we can all consider ourselves politically reasonable and not much left or right of center, and object or not even care if someone tells us we’re deluding ourselves. But if we wanted to sway and motivate others, indifference to how they’d label us would be a handicap, I’d think.
And if the "end" one is aiming for is persuading others, might not it be more effective to explicitly note that end? Eg "In this recent Pew survey, the collection beliefs I see most often expressed here on MOL represent only 8% of the electorate, so putting a lot of emphasis on these might make it challenging to win elections."
And I'd imagine there'd be a challenge on which beliefs, specifically, which would, ideally, force being more specific about which beliefs are in this 8%.
I imagine the whole thing would still fairly quickly devolve into an argumentative mess, but having at least been up front about the "end," the arguments would at least have a greater chance of surfacing something related to that end.
And if the "end" one is aiming for is persuading others, might not it be more effective to explicitly note that end?
Not for the purpose the survey or labels that I’m suggesting, which is basically a tool for self-awareness. “I may be pretty far left of these fellow Americans I’m trying to reach” strikes me as a potentially more useful and productive internal acknowledgment than “I’m rowing in the mainstream, or close to it, so if we disagree, these folks had better not let our paddles hit them on their backsides.”
On its own terms, this seems like a possible end, when it comes to considering classifications: “Hey, look at that. If I’m this far left (or right) of the American political center, it gives me a rough idea of how much more persuasive I and people like me need to be if we want to move that 6” line on a Made in America ruler.”
Individually, we can all consider ourselves politically reasonable and not much left or right of center, and object or not even care if someone tells us we’re deluding ourselves. But if we wanted to sway and motivate others, indifference to how they’d label us would be a handicap, I’d think.
And if the "end" one is aiming for is persuading others, might not it be more effective to explicitly note that end? Eg "In this recent Pew survey, the collection beliefs I see most often expressed here on MOL represent only 8% of the electorate, so putting a lot of emphasis on these might make it challenging to win elections."
And I'd imagine there'd be a challenge on which beliefs, specifically, which would, ideally, force being more specific about which beliefs are in this 8%.
I imagine the whole thing would still fairly quickly devolve into an argumentative mess, but having at least been up front about the "end," the arguments would at least have a greater chance of surfacing something related to that end.
classifications like that particular one from Pew are really not very useful in telling us anything about winning elections. For one thing, the 8% of "solid liberals" are a small group because they need to strongly favor a whole host of liberal positions. So of course the group nets out to be very small. If a person only "somewhat" favors one of the survey items, they don't qualify to be in the solid liberal group. But from a voting standpoint, how is that helpful in predicting whom someone will vote for? How many people require that a candidate match their personal opinions on every single issue? And how important are each of those issues to the voter in making decisions?
Maybe a classification like that is helpful in the rare instance like the NYC mayoral primary with a half dozen or so candidates who represented the whole ideological spectrum of the Democratic Party. But with two candidates running, of what value is that sort of granularity? Is a "centrist" Democrat going to vote for a Trumpist candidate if they think the Democrat is a "solid liberal"? Probably not. Similarly, is a solid liberal voter not going to vote for a centrist Democrat running against a Trumpy Republican? Not very likely.
And there we go -- now if Smedly is, indeed, trying to make some argument over electability ya'll have a fighting shot at actually talking about that. If I've completely misread this and you are all literally just trying to define some universal, immutable definition of "left", "far left", "centrist", etc, then good luck and enjoy yourselves I suppose.
All it is, as I see it, is Smedley opining that MOL commenters are farther left, in the context of big-picture national politics, than we’re willing to acknowledge. Agree or disagree or consider the whole argument irrelevant, but if I were someone who had thought that Biden couldn’t win last November, I’d be rethinking something.
It isn’t this complicated, if you see the results of the decline of New York City in recent years. (Not to ignore New York State under Cuomo.)AOC’s popularity is an example of the appeal of the far left, socialism, welfare state, etc. and the allure of governmental parenting. Many Millennials are college educated (on paper), can’t hold, or find a job that doesn’t interfere with their social life, and feel entitled!
All it is, as I see it, is Smedley opining that MOL commenters are farther left, in the context of big-picture national politics, than we’re willing to acknowledge. Agree or disagree or consider the whole argument irrelevant, but if I were someone who had thought that Biden couldn’t win last November, I’d be rethinking something.
I assume you're referring to people like me. I did in fact rethink a lot of things I wrote before the election and wrote about it on this board.
I'm just not in favor of scales and surveys that leave out metrics that would define a real far left person to create a measurement in which the likes of Elizabeth Warren becomes an extremist. It's how the Overton window keeps moving to the right in this country. If a survey can't distinguish between Warren and a real communist for classification purposes, how valid or useful is it?
It isn’t this complicated, if you see the results of the decline of New York City in recent years. (Not to ignore New York State under Cuomo.)AOL’s popularity is an example of the appeal of the far left, socialism, welfare state, etc. and the allure of governmental parenting. Many Millennials are college educated (on paper), can’t hold, or find a job that doesn’t interfere with their social life, and feel entitled!
It isn’t this complicated, if you see the results of the decline of New York City in recent years. (Not to ignore New York State under Cuomo.)AOL’s popularity is an example of the appeal of the far left, socialism, welfare state, etc. and the allure of governmental parenting. Many Millennials are college educated (on paper), can’t hold, or find a job that doesn’t interfere with their social life, and feel entitled!
My political crystal ball is out for repairs.
that second cartoon is astoundingly racist.
and the rest of the post is astoundingly dumb.
second time she's used "AOL". is that some Fox news joke?
It isn’t this complicated, if you see the results of the decline of New York City in recent years. (Not to ignore New York State under Cuomo.)AOL’s popularity is an example of the appeal of the far left, socialism, welfare state, etc. and the allure of governmental parenting. Many Millennials are college educated (on paper), can’t hold, or find a job that doesn’t interfere with their social life, and feel entitled!
My political crystal ball is out for repairs.
that second cartoon is astoundingly racist.
and the rest of the post is astoundingly dumb.
second time she's used "AOL". is that some Fox news joke?
The decline of NYC? What decline?
The assertions in the cartoons are screamingly ignorant. The text above them is similarly disconnected from reality.
There is a discussion on another thread about what constitutes the "far left" as distinguished from the "center left".
IMHO there is a small far left fringe in the US represented by groups like the Progressive Labor Party and other minor political parties calling themselves "communist" or "socialist".
In most Western countries Senator Sanders of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez might be considered "left" but no one would call them "far left". Most members of the Democratic Party would be considered "center-left" and I would concur with that. I guess I would consider Democratic Sen. Manchin "centrist" and might put Republican Senator Susan Collins in that category. There may still be some "establishment" Republicans who are "center-right" , perhaps Mitt Romney, but most are just plain "Right". But there are a few who are "far-right". Remember those who proposed forming an "Anglo-Saxon" caucus.
Anyway this deserves its own discussion and I am interested in opinions other than my own. (Which distinguishes me from the originator of that other thread)