[Reactionary]

jakabedy = I don't believe that "far left" means "socialist"

It is what it is:

"Ideologies associated with the economic far left include: Leninism, Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Stalinism, Titoism and revolutionary socialism."

Far left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jakabedy]

Well, if wiki is our measurement tool, then . . .

"Far-right politics and political views commonly include authoritarianism, homophobia, nativism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia.["

I can't imagine that when one refers to himself as far-right in the context of American politics he is espousing these views. So why would someone who identifies as far-left be saddled with a similar list of "may includes"?

[Reactionary]

jakabedy - I'm not a huge fan of wiki either, but it is a useful starting place. For example of a wiki-flaw, they're wrong to describe National Socialism as a "far right" ideology - it is only to the 'right' of communism. If as to prove that point, the authors of your 'far right' article chose to note: "The terms have been used by different scholars in somewhat conflicting ways".

Defining the term 'far left' became an issue because some don't think of it as socialism - well, think again. If some calls themselves 'far right' you can jump on them, but that's not what happened here...

[bluebeard]

Let's please put this to rest, but I said "far left" within the U.S. context. For example, the political economy and regulatory structure of many European countries would be considered far left. Marxism is extremist, like anarchism, and extremely marginal within U.S. politics.
I think what we've found is that "left" and "right" have limited usage. The left in Alabama, Vermont ,Colorado,Ohio, Denmark,China, Liberia, Nicaragua, etc... are all different from each other.
For example, take nuclear power, the "left" and "right" have different opinions on the matter depending on where you go. Or even within individuals on each side in a particular region.

My point is, I'd like to vote for someone such as, say Russ Feingold. But that ain't gonna happen in Alabama. I don't wanna vote for Stalin or Mao, or even Chavez. In many European countries I might be on the right or center in some issues.

Furthermore, I was trying to say that even when I disregard ideology and try to look at elusive traits such as trustworthiness and competency, I am also at a loss, although this is almost the norm among politicians. This is also part of the choice between the turd sandwich and douchebag candidates. I don't really trust any of them. Politicians, by nature, say and do things to appease and get noticed. Otherwise they don't get elected. Within the Democratic party primary, I don't find either of the gubernatorial candidates, or most of any of the candidates, particularly high-quality. I'm not exactly a party loyalist, but I'd find it hard to vote in the Republican primary given that everyone within it says things I would have a hard time supporting, and don't find most of them any higher-quality anyway. I can live with Byrne. Like I said, I think if James got elected he might not actually be so horrible. Someone like Moore, while probably more trustworthy, scares me. He is what I'd call "far right".

In general, my feeling is half yours and half that other post that said who you elect doesn't matter. I believe who you elect matters, but also general civic participation matters. Its a 2-way street. Or a 4 way intersection. Or a round-about. Anyway, its complicated and there's no solid rule about the way things develop. I care about elections, but genuine wide-spread and structural change rarely happens due to a single person or election. Sometimes it does, but more often than not, it doesn't. And if it does, oftentimes the pressure came from the bottom, not from the politician on top.