I'm consistently confused by what people mean when they say "leftist".
The term continues today, with similar physically left-right distribution of comparable views within the U.S. legislative chamber.
In the US, the Democratic party is the more left-wing of the two main parties and is sometimes included under the "leftist" umbrella. However, some people, mostly on the far-left, reserve the term "leftist" for those who oppose capitalism.
Harris, Feinstein and Pelosi are all pretty center, until 2011 they had a Republican governo,r and these tech companies and their values are decidely not liberal.
Further, Cali is home to some very conservative politics, Devin Nunes is way out there as is Kevin McCarthy.
The idea of leftist doesn't seem consistent with the usage.
Perhaps pondering that question will trigger a recalibration.
In most of the world (outside of some one party states where the ruling party shifts with the poltiical winds to avoid losing dominance, like Mexico when it was under one-party rule), especially in multiparty democracies, the association of ideologies with parties is much stronger and more consistent than in the US. That aside, the dominant ideology of the Democratic Party has actually been consistent for a little over two-decades, but that ideology is center-right neoliberalism, not leftist. “Lefist” has mostly been associated with the Democratic Party because of the propaganda efforts of the even farther right party, not because of any real substance. It's only recently (since about 2014) that a faction even vaguely leftist has given any significant challenge to the dominant center-right faction of the Democratic Party.
To someone who grew up during that period, the allegations of socialism from the right never made any sense to me. It was only recently when Democrats started fighting to distance themselves from Obama that I understood the criticism from the right. I would also argue that you’re understating the profound shift that has happened in the last two years. The Green New Deal is an openly socialist document, and every Democratic candidate has committed to supporting it. It’s again the party of FDR, not the party of Clinton or Obama.
We’ll see about that. No sweeping legislation has been introduced, and words are cheap. I’m not convinced that many of the Democrats who support it now won’t suddenly find reason to water it down or oppose it when they need to put their vote on the record. It looks like Democrats are becoming the party of FDR again, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
The commenter who made the accusation of present leftism chose the time period of interest (the last couple decades.) Discussing within that frame rather than changing the subject to the distant past isn't "misleading".
> FDR was not a center right neo-liberal.
FDR died more than 70 years ago.
I mean, I might just as relevantly point out that Thomas Jefferson was a follower of the kind of old-school liberalism that modern center-right neoliberalism seeks to return to in reaction--at least within the Democratic Party--against center-left progressivism.
> There was a brief interregnum during which Clinton and Obama governed as center-right economically and center-left socially.
Well, except the Democratic Presidents governing from the economic center-right include Carter, as well; 1977-2008 isn't all that much shorter than 1932-1968 (the FDR-Johnson period). It was no "brief interregnum".
> To someone who grew up during that period, the allegations of socialism from the right never made any sense to me. It was only recently when Democrats started fighting to distance themselves from Obama that I understood the criticism from the right.
But the criticism you didn't understand didn't concern the times that you describe it as making sense. So...how did the later change validate it?
> I would also argue that you’re understating the profound shift that has happened in the last two years. The Green New Deal is an openly socialist document, and every Democratic candidate has committed to supporting it.
(1) The shift didn't happen in the last two years, more like the last 5.
(2) You are overweighting establishment candidates seeking deny candidates challenging the establishment ground to fight from, while burying substantial differences in policy below the level of headline positions; its a fairly standard strategy. Also, the GND is not, in any case, an "openly socialist" document; it does endorse both environmental and social-democratic goals, but does within a capitalist framework.
> It’s again the party of FDR
I think you are jumping to conclusions on the flimsy basis of early primary campaign strategy.
California may not be “socialist” like Sanders wants (and frankly, no country in the OECD is “socialist” anymore the way Sanders wants), but it’s certainly more leftist than the rest of the US. It’s got the highest taxes, among the highest social spending, much more government regulation of the economy, higher percentage of union workers than the US average, the highest minimum wage, etc. If should be doing a lot better than other US states.
No. The 1996 Democratic platform was quite right wing for example. And California Democrats’ policies on criminal justice were very much to the right.
> Like it's not just Sander's dems, its California which is not all that extreme (yet?)
I’m comparing states to each other, so I’m using “leftist” to indicate that California’s policies are further to the left compared to other states.
Sanders “Democratic Socialism” is basically European social democracy; none of the things Sanders seeks are all that uncommon, or even for the most part particularly “socialist”, by OECD standards.
> [California]’s got the highest taxes
It's not even in the top 20% of states by tax burden, coming in at 11 out of 50. (Iowa, which somehow never gets called leftist, is #10) [0]
[0] https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-bur...