You have a lot less conservative Christians in Europe (perhaps with the exception of Poland), but a lot more blatant ethnocentrist nationalists - a legacy of former decades and centuries where everyone was threatened by everyone else. (Exceptions apply.)
This is because in the US especially the "left" in the traditional socialist sense -- and its allies in the union movement and among students and academia -- have lost the class war. Since Clinton and Blair, there is no political space left for serious redistributive politics and the parties claiming the mantle of "left" or "social democratic" in the west have mostly given up. I'd say anti-capitalism remains strong among their base, but for all intents and purposes there is no path towards actually enacting policy... Which is why "Medicare for All" can be insanely popular in the United States across the population and voters of parties but still never ever become successful legislation.
And it's also why I find it so hilarious to see right wingers talk about the "MSM" and calling things like CNN "left wing"; all the bitching about "wokeness" and griping about culture wars and so on and complaining that somehow the "left" dominates society... It's amazing because in the context of what "left" meant for most of the 20th century... the left lost. It's gone. And I say this as a strong proponent of its classic positions.
Contemporary Pope would probably be horrified if someone suggested to him to initiate a crusade against the unbelievers. The combination of Christianity and politics has shifted over time, there is much less hard force and much more sentimentality involved.
But that does not mean that Crusaders weren't true Christians while Francis I. is, or vice versa.
The traditional left is gone because its proponents died out, but before they died, they introduced the young wokesters into their parties. The shift from blue collar workers to academia took decades to complete and there is a clear continuity in the process. So I think the label still fits, only the relevant institutions changed their priorities.
Likewise with socialist/social democratic parties -- if they abandon all the tenets of socialism: worker control of capital, anti-capitalism, etc. but still keep the name... is it just that the content of the expression has changed? That seems a stretch.
However, I guess there's an argument to be made that "left wing" is so non-specific that it could do what you're saying. The phrase itself has its origins in the French Revolution with the Jacobins, etc. who were certainly not socialist. So I guess there's that.
But here's the thing. Many of the politicians called "left" in the United States don't even call themselves that. The right wing in the US calls almost everything "left wing". I stare in amazement at people who call Clinton or Biden "left wing"; they don't describe themselves that way, and actual socialists and left wingers don't support them (except grudgingly with their noises plugged when they have to vote).
But to the Tea Party and Trump types, they are "left wing." By which they just mean something pejorative
"Shall there be two cities of Minas Morgul, grinning at each other across a dead land filled with rottenness?"
The only thing I can do about it is to interact civilly with like-minded people of totally different political persuasions and hope that others will be inspired not to enter the cesspool.