This view is based on some doing some basic research on both Sander's and Warren's websites. They both have proposed systemic changes that will tackle economic inequality. Progressive taxation, a wealth tax, a higher minimum wage, etc. It's mostly about reversing the past few decades that reduced taxes on the wealthy and allowing wages to stagnate. I don't see anything radical there. Anything too radical or against the constitution would be challenged in the courts which are currently conservative. So I think all this worry about Sanders and Warren is not based on anything they've put forward. It's more of a knee-jerk reaction to change. Change that a lot of people in the working class would like to see and benefit the most from.
Sanders' healthcare proposal is pretty extreme for nearly every country in Europe. The commonality it has is being "universal". European countries don't much ban private insurance. France and Germany have excellent systems with private insurance as a key portion. Most aren't completely free at the point of service. Nearly none of them are ubercomprehensive as Sanders' is. That's the centerpiece of his run and it isn't mainstream there.
The wealth tax is pretty unusual. The Netherlands calls their box 3 a wealth tax, but it really a capital gains tax on profits from investments at 30%. It's very different than what Sanders is proposing. There are only four countries in Europe with an actual wealth tax as Sanders is proposing. And even among these, they are all far lower than Warren and Sanders proposals, which are draconian for any country that I'm aware of. Sanders levels before the wealth tax kicks in seem higher than the four countries in Europe with a wealth tax though.
The cancelling of all student debt is pretty far out there. I don't know of another country that did that. It should be mentioned that in places with free college, which isn't universal in Europe, obviously wouldn't have debt to cancel.
Limiting CEO compensation is an EU proposal, but it is simply allowing shareholders to do so and not government mandated, as he is proposing.
There are some rent control proposals in cities like Berlin and London, but national rent control isn't the norm at all.
I think it's not accurate at all to call him a moderate in Europe. He's a lefty. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a meme driven by Sanders himself that he is in the center in Europe, with the leader of Denmarks pushing back against Sanders' claims. There is an odd meme from Sanders and his supporters about Nordic countries that makes them seem like the ideal countries for Sanders' ideas, but it isn't really true. These countries pretty much all had large "neoliberal" reforms in the 90's that led to large increases in income and economic growth, which gets ignored. Most of them today have far less business regulations than the US currently does. Their income tax systems tend to be more regressive than the US tax code, with a VAT (national sales tax) that isn't means tested and low levels of income taxed at much higher rates than we do. They just have better cradle to grave welfare systems, which is great. But it's not accurate to claim that the Nordic model is "like what Sanders would envision." Some aspects are, many are not.
With respect to Warren, I would agree with you. She's absolutely on the left with her belief in wealth tax, nationalised healthcare and "economic patriotism", however she has also said that she is "a capitalist to my bones". As far as I'm concerned, she understands the unique ability of private markets to create wealth and prosperity, but wants it to be better at distributing wealth. She believes in reforming American capitalism to be more equal, not abolishing it. I would compare her to Jess Phillips, an undoubtedly left British Labour party MP, but also one of the most outspoken critics of it's far left leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
Bernie is different. He has, in the past, called for the nationalisation of major industries, including banks, expressed support for Fidel Castro and took a honeymoon in the Soviet Union. There is no precedent for this in any West European country. If Bernie were British, he would be one of Jeremy Corbyn's closest allies. If he were Dutch he would be on the leftmost fringes of the solidly left Socialistische Partij.
His signature policy, Medicare for All has no European equivalent, not even the British National Health Service, which has a small number of private contracts, in addition to dentists and GPs being privately run. Private health insurance is not illegal and there are a small number of private hospitals run in the UK. Most European countries have better, more liberal systems, for example, the Dutch, who have one of the best in Europe. In the Netherlands, most hospitals are run by private, non-profit foundations, with people are free to choose between a wide variety of private health insurance plans, with all citizens required to have insurance source . This is much more similar to the healthcare policy of Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg, a public option where people can choose the healthcare plan right for them.
I would suggest that when discussing one country's politics, using another country's standards can be a little misleading. Another country being much more to the left of the United States doesn't change the fact that policies like Sanders' would represent a major shift to the left *for the United States*.
For perspective, think about doing the opposite. Let's say Norway had a conservative Christian presidential candidate who wanted to slash social programs and taxes. He might be labelled a reactionary, but we could in theory say 'well actually he's not all that right wing, he's actually only a little bit to the right by American standards.' The fact that he might even struggle to fit in with Republicans probably won't matter to Norwegians - electing him would represent a huge shift to the right *for Norway*.
All that said, right wing media does have an explicit political strategy of labeling anything to their left socialist or radical, so I don't think you're off base in general, but I do think it's appropriate to say that the country's political climate is more relevant than the globe's political climate when it comes to how much of a shift one candidate might represent; the United States could in theory be like Norway and Norway could in theory be like the United States but that kind of change would involve a massive political and social undertaking by either country, which would be relevant in a political discussion and is the exact kind of point that's getting dismissed when one says "Candidate X isn't really all that radical; he'd be a moderate in Country Y."
