My WAG:
Moderate/centrist Democrats want to keep things pretty much as they are, or as they were under previous Democratic administrations.
“Far left” Democrats want substantial change to the way things are.
The US is the only place where nationalization of entire industries is considered far left? What an odd endorsement of the US.
A progressive is someone with the unfortunate habit of being right too soon.
Well David Brooks is (he wrote an op-ed about it recently), so there is at least one! 
Yes, any day now eugenics will have its moment. True pioneers.
I think he was only a Republican when they wanted to kill more brown people.
Rather than what makes a person (or party) “far left”, the real issue is that the term is a dog whistle. Sorta like ‘commies’ were back in the day. As a dog whistle, its use in any rational discussion is therefore bound to destabilize and lead to irrationality (excepting, of course, rational meta-discussions about dog whistles and the like).
Characterizing or labeling someone as far-left should invoke its own form of Godwin’s Law.
We’ve covered this before. A national health care system doesn’t have to nationalize the health care industry. In most places where it has been implemented, it doesn’t.
“Medicare for all” is the nationalization of the health insurance industry. Dispute?
Yes the far leftists want to nationalize health insurance. If the nationalization of industries is no longer far left, what is?
Nationalizing industries for political reasons, for the sake of government ownership, that’s what. Most industries operate best under regulated private ownership. But not all.
Health care coverage is such an appallingly bad fit as the basis for private business that it’s amazing that it works at all. It totally doesn’t fit the insurance model and virtually all the incentives are wrong for the imperatives of health care. Instituting health care coverage as an essential public service isn’t “leftist” (let alone "far left), it’s just the most practical and by far most efficient way of doing it. That’s not ideology, it’s rationality and basic economics. In countries where it’s been adopted it’s supported by liberal and conservative governments alike.
If I may also glom onto Ditka’s post, I agree that it does make sense. As far as it goes. Yes, a far-left position can be determined based on how many people support it. When it comes to categorizing an individual, however, it’s not so easy. What if I am for full reparations and literally getting rid of all airplanes (reference to phony green new deal AOC attack :)) but also am anti-abortion and rabidly pro death penalty. How do you characterize me now? What are the exact criteria that decides if one is liberal, or conservative, or is at any other part to the political spectrum. It’s easy to label like this, but in the end, if that criteria isn’t specifically defined, what good is it?
Definition of “Far Left”: Anyone running against a Republican, and all those that support said candidate.
Not really. The loudest and most active part of the Dems at the moment is the lunatic fringe, like AOC and others of her ilk. They do not realize how toxic their radical views are to potential swing voters. Their presence on the ballot, and any success they may have in the primary season, will drag the more reasonable candidates to the left…and probably ensure the Donald’s re-election.
So there you have it…sell out to the radical left, or cope with the fucking Nazi in Chief for another 4 years.
Me? I think I’m going to found a death cult religion that prays for a giant asteroid to wipe us out. Our sacred hymn shall be Queen’s “We Will Rock You”.
He only recently became a Republican?
If the position is not a fringe position how is it the “far”-whatever?
It seems to me the “far” wing of a party is the fringe but with some support (less than 15% I’d say…maybe 10%) and the “ultra” wing of a party are the real nutters…the 1% on the lunatic fringe (e.g. ban all meat sales and mandate a vegetarian diet for the country kinda thing).
You may be right, but I don’t blame AOC. In normal, sane political discourse a more extreme individual like AOC will be seen to raise worthwhile and productive discussions. If they make their case well enough, they may even help shift the middle of the road. The problem isn’t AOC, the problem is how Republican hysteria grossly misrepresents and vilifies people like her. That’s what makes it toxic. Just like Obama himself became toxic to many, on the basis that he was a Kenyan-born Muslim trying to socialize America by introducing a health care plan that would kill your grandmother.
Of course it’s disputable. A nationalized system can take solely a regulatory role without taking actual ownership of the means of production. This shouldn’t have to be explained again, particularly with a glaring example to our immediate north.
AOC isn’t being misrepresented - she’s a nutcase, and it shows.
Regards,
Shodan
No he got out when the leader criticized the Iraq debacle.
Pleas copped.
Nationalization of industries is a far left phenomenon. Yes the fascist right is liable to the same errors, but in this case I don’t think it is the far right fascists pushing for nationalization.