> If you polled all Democratic voters, 90%+ would say they are left and liberal.
Or, in the real world, a bit fewer than half would say they are “liberal” or “very liberal”. Because that's something that's polled on quite frequently, so there is real data:
It's true that in popular, as opposed to politically sophisticated, conversation in the US, a one-dimensional spectrum where the left and right poles are liberal and conservative is popular, and it's true that partisans on both sides like to portray the opposing party as more ideologically unified and extreme on that axis than it is, so that if you polled Republicans, they'd probably come close to identifying Democrats as consistently both left and liberal.
It would seem the commenters on this site are mostly Americans who don’t know that their two-party system only represents two flavors of pro-capitalist neoliberalism. But left and right political spectrum and the corresponding terms have meaning outside of the limited political window of centre-right US mainstream discussion.
> It would seem the commenters on this site are mostly Americans
Probably.
> who don’t know that their two-party system only represents two flavors of pro-capitalist neoliberalism.
It's impossible to know something that isn't true. From about the late 1980s to sometime in 2016-2017 (the end was more sudden than the beginning), the dominant factions of both parties supported pro-capitalist neoliberalism, it's true, but each has had significant factions not focussed on that position the whole time, and the neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party has been weakening for most of the last decade or so, and the neoliberal faction of the Republican Party was overthrown for dominance by a party that, insofar as it has a coherent economic policy at all, would be more populist protectionist than neoliberal (if one is being generous; kleptocratic opportunist if one is less generous.) American political parties are much more diverse than is the case of parties in systems that is typical in either proportional or parliamentary systems (and, especially, systems with both PR and parliamentary systems.)
This distinction is neither as clear nor as absolute as you appear to believe.
Classical liberalism[1] is an economic stance somewhat similar to the economic views of libertarianism in the US. This is distinct from social liberalism which is what "liberal" commonly means in the US, which mostly overlaps with what could be called "progressive politics".
"Classical Liberalism" is confusing in the modern context, so it is rarely used execpt by people trying to confuse people (eg, right wing commentators who claim to be "classical liberals"). The biggest exception to this is the (right-wing, conservative) Liberal party in Australia, which was founded on the ideas of "Classical Liberalism"
There's also "liberal" in the "liberal democracy" sense. This is where multiple parties contend for power under known, written down rules.[2]
And then there is "left-[wing]". Left wing can refer to a social view, where it is used as a close-synonym for social liberalism or progressivism. Or it can refer to an economic view, which is much more context (and country) specific.
In the context of US politics the Democratic party is the most left-wing major party in both an economic and social sense.
In terms of media sources, the NY Times is definitely a proponent of "liberal democracy", but in a social and economic sense it is fairly centerist (despite the claims to the contrary by populist).
All this yacking about "well in America words have different meanings" (as if anyone on earth has been able to escape the onslaught of USA media) only makes it clear how unfamiliar all these nerds are with Taibbi's work. Taibbi is an actual leftist, and therefore has been attacked by liberals. If you search you can find absolutely ridiculous slander written about him in HN comments in the last several years.
Or, in the real world, a bit fewer than half would say they are “liberal” or “very liberal”. Because that's something that's polled on quite frequently, so there is real data:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/17/liberals-ma...
It's true that in popular, as opposed to politically sophisticated, conversation in the US, a one-dimensional spectrum where the left and right poles are liberal and conservative is popular, and it's true that partisans on both sides like to portray the opposing party as more ideologically unified and extreme on that axis than it is, so that if you polled Republicans, they'd probably come close to identifying Democrats as consistently both left and liberal.