I'm going to reply with a comment I made an hour ago.
"The far-left managed to create an "amazing" (and terrifying) perspective.
If you're a leftist but not as leftist as them, you're a centrist, maybe even center-right which makes everybody on the right to be automatically far-right."
I mean, the Third Way Democrats whole shtick is embracing right wing policies and injecting them into the democratic party. They gained power as a faction in the democratic party around 1992 with the argument that after Reagan changed politics in the US and after losing the presidency for three elections, they argued that the democratic party needed to shift heavily to the right to chase what Americans were looking for. Clinton got for instance got elected on a platform to "end the welfare system a we know it", and gun control (which at the time was a right wing policy because scary minorities were open carrying. Reagan actually passed the law against open carrying, the Mulford Act, stating at the time that there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons"). The explicit goal here was courting center right moderates.
Since then the Democratic Party has continued tracking to the right, with Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's 1994/94 HEART Act being slightly edited and passed as Obamacare.
This isn't a "terrifying perspective", but literally public statements and accepted political science.
> I mean, the Third Way Democrats whole shtick is embracing right wing policies and injecting them into the democratic party. They gained power as a faction in the democratic party around 1992
They gained power before that (their main original organization, the DLC, was a powerful force in Democratic politics well before its former head became the Democratic nominee in 1992), but they were definitely the unquestionably dominant faction from that point forward, though that has gotten weaker over the past decade or so.
Sure, by "gained power", I mean that they went from fairly important group to _the_ leadership of the party, actively purging other groups, and their decisions were the de facto decisions of the party as a whole.
Anti-capitalists, socialists, police defunders, censors (they can be also far right wingers), haters of every western thing, etc. You can easily identify them inside the democratic party, they have a lot of power now.
Those aren't far-left. Especially the "haters of every western thing" lol.
Far-left is the complete abolition of private property, abolition of police and prisons, in some cases the abolition of monies period.
There are literally zero far-left people in elected or appointed positions within the US government today.
Your worldview is much smaller than reality and the dog-whistles you lean on are obvious. Educate yourself before choosing to expound your limited views.
Except for the fact that a mainstream democrat is a center-right politician anywhere else in the world. The "far-left" you reference doesn't exist outside Twitter and a small group of congresspeople, giving that small group an outsized image of power isn't very congruent with reality.
Neoliberalism is based on economic policy position. Your lack of understanding of the term doesn't mean people are using it incorrectly.
It does have a meaning.
> Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.
"The far-left managed to create an "amazing" (and terrifying) perspective.
If you're a leftist but not as leftist as them, you're a centrist, maybe even center-right which makes everybody on the right to be automatically far-right."