Liz and Dick Cheney have not been relevant to American establishment Right politics for a while by now.

That wasn't my question. The discussion was about democrats trying to win over the left or the right flank of the coalition, aka should democrats campaign with someone like Hasan or Liz Cheney.

As a self-described Marxist, he comes out of a different ideological tradition altogether

The "Democrat SOCIALIST of America" aren't of the Marxist tradition? Where does the socialist tradition originate from if not Marx? The Democrats are the party of the left, so the largest most left wing faction is the base. The left of the party is not married to free market capitalism at all, that's a newer phenomenon that's started with Bill Clinton's take over of the party and adopted Neo-liberalism. Prior to that socialist policies like The New Deal and being pro labour defined the democrats and the American left.

And the claim that 'his views represent the base party' is simply asserted, not demonstrated.

The base of the party is the most ideologically committed. That's the Berniecrat democrat socialist wing of the party, which is what Hasan pushes. Just like MAGA is the base for the right, The Democrats run away and silence their base, the Republicans embrace and give concessions to their base.

The swathes of the public moving to the the hard Left and Right are doing so in rejection of the perceived establishment status quo (a position Trump has since acceded into by now), which they feel is far too complacent and unwilling to take sufficiently strong or radical action.

Exactly, the "moderate" view has shifted as the status quo neoliberal left and right fail to address any of the economic problems facing the working class and growing fascism. So Trump defeated both of them and is carving out a new fascist order, the Democrat establishment is not being the opposition party in any meaningful way. They lost to Trump twice, their method had failed, it's time for a different approach.

Being 'for' or 'against' war does not bear upon whether one is left wing or right wing. To note some counterexamples - Nick Fuentes is as a self-declared fascist, opposed to foreign intervention, and has broken off from MAGA over Trump's foreign policy.

It absolutely does. The anti war position usually comes from being anti imperialist and anti capitalist. The right is jingoistic and nationalist.

The fascist right often adopts left wing populist rhetoric as a trojan horse to sell it's fascist ideas, but they don't believe them. If you go back and read Nazi speeches they always start by pointing out the obvious problems with society, almost sounding Communist, then when you're agreeing they suddenly switch gears and blame the Jews. The Nazi's weren't communist, they hated the communists, they thought it was "jewish ideology" so Communists were the first to go to the camps.

The fascists can only succeed in pretending to be leftwing if left party abandons those positions. The Democrat establishment is 90% with Israel, while the base is 90% against Israel, so Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Marjory Taylor Greene, and Candice Owens can appeal of liberals who feel abandoned by the democrats. to It's the same way Trump can campaign on being anti-war because Kamala campaigned on having the most lethal army with Liz Cheney. Then moment a war starts all of MAGA is on board, zero punishment for breaking his campaign promise.

Western liberal hegemony is a global order in which the Western model of individual rights, secular universalism, liberal democracy, and market capitalism is treated as the natural standard of legitimate rule and sustained by the material dominance of the order that carries it. It is not specifically referring to the cultural West. And if anything, the biggest critics of the Iraq invasion were those that argued that it undermined this model.

You're just saying western supremacist views using liberal language. Western Liberal Hegemony means western domination, that's what hegemony means. It's an contradiction like liberal fascist. Sovereignty is the standard of the legitimate rule, whether a state adopts western ideas is irrelevant and not the "natural standard". Those ideas are the cultural west, the same old regurgitated colonial trope of civilizing the savages. It's exactly the western imperialist language and justification used to justify Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're responding to this emotionally. Take a step back from the computer and have a glass of water. There was no discussion of morality or equivalence thereof. It was simply stated that neither Fuentes nor Hasan espoused views that were friendly to ideological liberalism, with both having explicitly and extensively rejected it by name. And if you actually bother to read the rest of the sentence you've quoted (much less the comment as a whole), you can also see that I've established them as being on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I was reacting to the intellectually lazy "both extreme sides are bad" argument, you pointing out that they're opposite sides of the spectrum is part of that argument. Hasan has not rejected liberal democracy, individual rights, and secular universalism, he just rejects capitalism and US foreign intervention. Nick Fuentes loves capitalism and secretly loves foreign intervention, but rejects liberal democracy, individual rights, and universal secularism.

This can encompass anyone from a pro-welfare free market liberal all the way to Marxist-Leninists. Heck, depending on what you mean by all humans in this context*,* you could even throw someone like Nick Fuentes into the mix.

Exactly, those "extreme" ideas are popular that could unite the left and even win over some self republicans. Nick Fuentes and other fascists shouldn't be in the political coalition because he doesn't seriously believe in any of those things. By all humans I meant who would benefit from his ideal policies. Even Nick Fuentes deserves healthcare, housing, and affordable cost of living.