There is no such thing as the “alt-left.”

[bigheadfred]

There is no such thing as the “alt-left.”

But in a piece for Vanity Fair, James Wolcott pretends otherwise:

    Disillusionment with Obama’s presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton, disgust with “identity politics,” and a craving for a climactic reckoning that will clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created a kinship between the “alt-right” and an alt-left. They’re not kissin’ cousins, but they caterwaul some of the same tunes in different keys.

Wolcott admits the left “can’t match” the alt-right “for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach”—then proceeds to make just such an argument. This is bad writing in service of a bad argument: “People say things I don’t like” is not the same thing as “people advocate for a white ethnostate.” This is precisely the false equivalency Wolcott makes by using the phrase “alt-left.” It is a disingenuous characterization designed to undermine leftist claims.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141108/no-thing-alt-left

[Cripplecreek]

If there were an "alt left" they would have found an "Alt Clinton" to run and defeat her but in the end they chose to either support her or stay home.

[bigheadfred]

If there were an "alt left" they would have found an "Alt Clinton" to run and defeat her but in the end they chose to either support her or stay home.

Alt left seems like a redundancy.

[Doug Loss]

Well, they're right.  There's no such thing as the alt-left because the left in general doesn't allow anyone not fully onboard to have any say.  It isn't the alt-left, it's just "the left."