[nradov]

Yes, Tulsi Gabbard is a leftist based on any rational analysis of her actual voting record.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tulsi_gabbard/41253...

She might not be as far left as you would prefer, but there is no doubt she is on the left side of the US political spectrum. (And please don't bother wasting our time with that tired old trope about the Democrats being equivalent to center-right party in European politics. We're not in Europe.)

[Cesura]

Your interpretation makes sense if you consider leftist to be a purely relative classification. We don't even need to look outside of the US to understand why that's not a very meaningful way to think about ideology: the Overton window within the Republican party has undergone a substantial shift to the right since the 1970s [1].

Without even loosely-defined characterizations of what a political ideology is and where it falls on our (albeit very imperfect) scale, terms like "leftism" are doomed to a future of being weaponized by their opponents, who themselves shift right and decry moderates as "radicals".

All of that aside, I'd still like to hear your rationalization for her recent appearance as the host of a far-right talk show where she, among other things, referred to the sitting attorney general's investigation of a former President's alleged crimes as one having "all hallmarks of a dictatorship". Is hosting Tucker's program an endorsement of every position he's ever espoused? Surely not. But I'd say it's a level of support akin to giving a speech at a political candidate's rally...

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FT_22...

[shrimp_emoji]

>that tired old trope about the Democrats being equivalent to center-right party in European politics.

This is dumb misconception, too. It is absolutely false. If anything, Europe (even if you focus solely on Western Europe -- if not, "slightly" would be "extremely") is slightly more conservative than America, especially socially. That may seem false if you look from certain angles, like social welfare, but those are red herrings (e.g., social welfare's a lot easier to expand when taxes are already very high, when your poverty levels are already way lower, etc.).

[ModernMech]

Despite your parenthetical attempt to sidestep this fact, being barely on the left side of the US political spectrum doesn't make one a "leftist". Meaning that people who consider themselves leftists don't agree with Tulsi Gabbard.

It's hard to point to a voting record as evidence of one being a leftist or not, when actual leftist policies are not typically put up for a vote in America. Her ideological score puts her in line with Tim Ryan, who is currently running for Senate in right-leaning Ohio, and is competitive because of the very fact he isn't a leftist. Despite what you may hear, not all Democrats are socialists. Far from it.

[screye]

To add to your point, there is a kernel of truth in the 'the left keeps moving goalposts' meme [1].

In present internet discourse, 5-percentile radical leftist opinions are peddled as if they represent any significant group of people in this nation. Anyone who does not agree with their often non-scientific ideological framework is labelled as right-wing-fascist irrespective of ground realities surrounding the person or the topic.

What we're witnessing here is a takeover of the American left by a very particular strain of political activism. Like all activists, they too care more about ascendency in the power struggle and aesthetic markers of cultural victory, instead of practical solutions for improving the lives of the population they represent.

> We're not in Europe

If Europe had anywhere near the racial/cultural/religious diversity of the US, then they'd be on their way to a swift turn to the right. Orban is the canary, and the rise of the right in Germany/France/Italy is exactly representative of that phenomenon. Social safety nets do not make for left-liberal ideology. Most of these socialist-paragons demand incredible conformity (scandinavia) and have restrictive abortion laws [2] among other traditionally right-wing traits.

[1] https://preview.redd.it/iwnju4entbw81.jpg?width=1024&auto=we...

[2] https://dynomight.net/abortion/

[AllegedAlec]

> If Europe had anywhere near the racial/cultural/religious diversity of the US

You fucken serious right now?

[screye]

Yes, and I will stand by it.

Europeans love to use ethnic subgroups of white as markers for diversity, but the distinctions are much smaller. Culture and religion(or the manner of its rejection) on the other hand seem to be greatly homogenous in European nations.

Each European nation seems to have a secondary ethnic group of ex-colonial immigrants (France : West Africa, England : North (erstwhile) India, Germany : Turks (not colonial)); but they too seem to be othered within their identity as a nation.

The US actually tries a 2 directional cultural exchange with its immigrant groups. The friction and vitriol that you see, has to do with a genuine attempt at mutual integration. It starts with surface level differences like having access to every cuisine to having celebrities of every ethnicity. But, it also goes deeper. America almost has 'I made this [1]' approach towards appropriating cultural products that start elsewhere. To an extent, the reason Americans get so loud about losing their culture, is because American culture is so weakly defined & fluid. On the other hand, you might not see Germans or French people abusing 'immigrants' because unless you fully integrate, you will always be othered. The very rigidity of the culture, makes it 'feel' like a welcoming place to outsiders.

Americans love to self-flagellate, but the country has done better than any other country at developing at identity that isn't racial, religious or cultural in nature. That's not to say that the conditions are great here. But integration and cultural exchange are hard problems, and not-too-bad is about as good as it gets.

[1] https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/079/173/ed2...

[sascha_sl]

I do find your [1] oddly compelling, but not for the reasons you think. Wide political and social change (or progress, if you want to be an optimist) is rarely made through convincing people to fundamentally change, but generational shifts. You are merely finding yourself on the fading side of that shift.

That aside, it's very funny to accuse the left of shifting the overton window after a republican president that pardoned his co-conspirators, called for insurrection and then took top secret documents home - a crime he himself increased the penalty for. So much for law and order.

[screye]

> is rarely made through convincing people to fundamentally change, but generational shifts

Yes, but that implies a certain 'conflict theory' approach to cultural development.

It is an 'all is fair in love and war' framework, which fully enfranchises the obstructionist policies of Mitch McConnell and the executive overreach of DeSantis which involves banning of CRT in schools. If opinions ossify at adulthood, then the only 2 plans of action are brainwash during schooling or disenfranchise your opponents using every slimy trick in the book.

Never convince, never compromise and certainly never rely on a representative democracy to achieve the closest outcome to consensus. I for one, refuse to espouse this theory.

> republican president

I'm not American or white and I dislike Trump, but the 2016 and 2020 elections solidified my opinion of the internet left being a unrepresentative sample of the left-leaning populace in the US. Democrat voters resoundingly rejected Warren/Sanders in 2020 despite the left's best efforts to convince you otherwise. The absolute media onslaught faced by him was unprecedented, and excellent evidence driven organizations were falling over each other to take 'Not-Trump' stances on every policy he ever suggested.

I used to trust NPR, NYT, ACLU & Scientific organizations a lot more until the 2016 election. Now I have to go read the very papers/stats/documents these organizations source from, with conclusions that often contrast the headlines of these very articles.