Here it is: A Definition of Far Left

[JasonBerry]

Many seem to be complaining that the so-called "moderates" at DU never define "Far-Left." Well, this is my real-world interpretation and I do not pretend to speak for others.

1. The Far-Left walks in lock-step on most every single issue. Tell me where one stands on one issue and I can tell you where they stand on ALL issues. They tend to follow the "leftist line" and rarely offer observations that are independent in thought and not already thought-police approved.

2. The Far-Left tends to support positions that the mainstream in America consider way out. Examples would be reparations for slavery, support of international leftist governments that espouse democratic ideals but operate in a very Leninist fashion, Single Payer government-run health insurance. You get the idea - lots of things would fit in this category.

3. The Far-Left often uses tactics that are anathema to mainstream America. Extremists on the left AND right are equally guilty on this and is one reason they are considered extremist. Examples of tactics would include interrupting speakers at a public forum by shouting them down, throwing paint that looks like blood, civil disobedience over every issue in which they don't get their way, use of culturally intolerant speech in individual discussion ie: calling the America government "fascist" and saying we live in a "police state".

4. The Far-Left is less committed to political party and less willing to compromise to get things done. They would rather nothing get done and preserve their idealogical purity than see something halfway. The old saying around where I live is a half a loaf will feed a person. Yes, a full loaf would be better, but a half loaf feeds people. Walking away from the compromise leaves no loaves and hungry people. This kind of idealogical purity is a prescription for constant deadlock and - nothing gets done. This extends to purity in candidates. If a traditional liberal differs from the Far-Left agenda they are more willing to walk - which serves no purpose in our current political system except to elect Republicans. Moderates are happy if we finally get to feed someone with the half of loaf even the full loaf would have been preferable.

5. Finally, the Far-Left is shrill. Too often they portray anybody that doesn't see things their way as someone who just hasn't seen the light. Walking in the "darkness". Because of this righteous thinking, there is a tendency to look down on people with whom they disagree and call them "sheeple" and such.

That is my attempt at definition. As you probably noticed, much of it is a definition that defines a mindset and tactics as much as policy.

That's a start. Agree or disagree, I hope I will not receive nothing but flames as I truly have tried to answer a question that has been asked of moderates on this board. I think it is a fair question and I hope you respect what I think is an attempt at a fair answer. You may not agree - but I have given my opinion as to the answer - at least for some of us. At any rate, we can all agree - I hope - that George Bush has got to go in November.

[leyton]

1. #5 is dead-on.

I about have an aneurism every time I hear mention of "sheeple."

Also, as support for number 1, I'll refer people to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x417037

[ret5hd]

2. Here it is: A Definition of Moderate Left

A republican trying to fool the rest of us.

[JasonBerry]

5. See what I mean?????

That reply is void of thought. It is rude and calling moderate democrats "Republicans in disguise" fits the shrill discussion as noted above. You offered nothing but antagonism here.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

3. This is bullshit flame bait

just because someone disagrees with your party line-whatever that party may be-doesn't mean that they're lockstep.

Tiresome. Transparent. :eyes:

[Moderator]

4. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.