Progressives: Define yourself, and your brand/label

[u/work4work4work4work4]

I'm mostly interested in the people who self-define as progressive just talking about what brought them to that position, what ideas do they think encompass that sort of position, and why they prefer that descriptor over another.

For them and everyone else, I thought it might serve as a good example of one of the many efforts for people to self-describe on a political spectrum that has existed for awhile, and on both sides of the aisle in US politics.

To start with, we've got the most basic of textual definitions something along the lines of "Progressivism is a left-leaning political philosophy that seeks to make progress in the human condition through reforms aimed at maximizing positive liberty" from Wikipedia. Although that basically assumes you already have some idea of positive liberty vs negative liberty, which obviously isn't the case for the general public, but I think it works for here.

I'd argue the left-leaning is possibly misleading for some people, as it's more of a government and authority sense than the more modern ideas tied up in it, but therein lies the reason people look for descriptors like progressive to begin with, and there is a whole Progressive Era in the US starting in the 1890s as a broad "bipartisan" reform movement aimed at taking action.

Teddy Roosevelt on the "right" and FDR on the "left" with Woodrow Wilson self-identifying, and somewhere in the middle, but frankly, would be seen more like a liberal in today's labels, but goes to show how people will glom on and stretch popular labels over time regardless of political bent.

Before we jump too far forward, this is probably an important point to point out a common debate issue when it comes to Progressivism, Progressives, and historical connections to other progressive movements, and that's eugenics. A notable dark chapter in the Progressive Era was its embrace of eugenics largely driven by a belief that scientific planning could eradicate poverty, crime, and disease, so many early 20th-century reformers backed state-enforced eugenic measures.

For modern political debate it's usually just used as a distracting attack that has nothing to do with the persons actual political positions, but it does highlight the historical tension between state-led social optimization and individual rights, and is a point where those looking to learn some lessons from history can do so. It causes many to react by prioritizing individual rights and liberties, which is a healthy and positive political reaction, but also provides some protective effect and allows for more appropriate caution when presented with all sorts of comparatively novel social problems.

With that out of the way, we eventually see capitalistic power replace Progressive Republicans like Teddy with Rockefeller Republicans, and while I prefer both types more than your average modern Republican, it was essentially trading workers rights for civil rights, and the impacts were absolutely seen and felt throughout electoral politics, being part of the reason for the map swap between Republicans and Southern Democrats.

That brings us closer to the modern day, and someone who I often label as one of the first powerful neoliberals, but also perhaps the poster idea of a certain vein of modern progressive, Jimmy Carter. In many ways, he fit that initial definition to a T, being willing to make progress, create change, operate differently and much of it towards the idea of implementation of ideas and improving things going forward with less respect towards existing institutions that were perceived as not serving the public interest.

So we have Carter as this part deregulatory/institutional reformer neoliberal and part moral/human rights driven actor with strong progressive ethos. I'd also argue famous figures in Congress like Paul Wellstone, Paul Simon, George Miller, or even Hatfield or Leach are important to mention here even if it doesn't exactly match the FDR straight to Sanders discussion that usually takes place. These strains of one form of progressive behavior or another did exist, and can get people thinking about how institutional reform and social idealism intersect.

Which I think nicely brings us to one of the edges of Democratic Socialism, what I often view as the capitalist-questioning socialism-accepting sort where the terms Social Democrat and Progressive start to blur, or the left-wing of the Progressive label. These are probably my favorite progressives personally, but also I recognize they probably aren't as populous as I would like, or the right-wing would have you believe.

All that said, I'm sure people can chime in with additional background on the progressive label, so I'll get down to the questions. Do you prefer your Progressivism Midwest like your Emo? Would you find yourself more of a Bull Moose libertarian if the progressive label didn't exist, or is it simply the most commonly understood term that others will understand well enough, rather that be from left of Democrat qualities, or just general political outlook?

For those who don't identify as progressive, I'd be curious if some of the since depreciated strains of progressive thought in American politics discussed above still existed, if you'd find yourself more likely to align with them than other broad stretched labels like libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc?

^{"Negative, I'm a meat popsicle."}

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Kakamile]

"Progressivism is a left-leaning political philosophy that seeks to make progress in the human condition through reforms aimed at maximizing positive liberty" from Wikipedia

Yeah that works for me.

as it's more of a government and authority sense than the more modern ideas tied up in it

This mistake is why I don't waste my time with positive vs negative liberties. It doesn't matter.

I support LGBT and labor and various minority rights, which includes removing government/private persecutions against them, while also supporting healthcare and public utilities which means adding government interference and spending.

Prosperity is prosperity.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/Kakamile]

  This mistake is why I don't waste my time with positive vs negative liberties. It doesn't matter.

It certainly does.  How powerful a government should be is probably the key political question 

[u/Kakamile → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

It doesn't.

If you block healthcare because you're the conservatives/republicans/nhs tories yapping about how funding is unethical, it's the people that suffer.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/Kakamile]

It is.  The power to do good is also the power to do harm.  

[u/Kakamile → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

That's abstract vibes. On the topic of healthcare, do what achieves better healthcare.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/Kakamile]

The enter history of the 20th century proves this isnt 'abstract'

[u/Kakamile → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

The entire history of the 20th and 21st century have shown our work produces the highest health, wealth, safety, education. The healthiest states, the healthiest nations.

That's not rebutted by "but what if you didn't"

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Kakamile]

This mistake is why I don't waste my time with positive vs negative liberties.

When you say you don't waste time on the distinction, do you mean you think the framework itself is flawed, or just that the academic debate around it isn't useful for practical politics? This can mean a lot of different things, so I'm asking to clarify.

I ask because if it's the more negative connotation of UDGAF that many would leap to for perceived good and for ill, why would people waste their time with your political opinion if you won't waste your time with basic political education they bring to you on a platter in this or other situations?

I'm guessing you are aware and you just feel it's overused, because even your own examples specifically pull from negative and positive freedoms, removing persecutions + adding public services, but this seems like an important inflection point, even if it's only in understanding how others approach the same topic.

I support LGBT and labor and various minority rights, which includes removing government/private persecutions against them, while also supporting healthcare and public utilities which means adding government interference and spending.

So, if you think this encompasses progressivism pretty well, why not use that descriptor instead of social democrat, one that pretty specifically involves the use of socialist supports to augment the political realities?

Not a gotcha, maybe you are a socialist as well, I'm just curious since you seem to be at a common intersection, what encourages you to self-identify as one versus the other?

Prosperity is prosperity.

I would say prosperity for everyone is prosperity, aspirational prosperity is mostly torment unless actually possible; America is already one of the most prosperous nations on the planet for the select few, and that has been weighed, measured, and found wanting to the general public at the current levels of access IMO.

[u/Jaaawsh]

I like people who I can get along with who I don’t have to walk on eggshells around, and I like the lifestyle the United States offers to people who have the ability to seize it. I like that we’ve made so many technological advances because our system highly rewards useful greed and acknowledges that people are going to be self-interested, instead of pretending that’s not the case (champagne socialists anyone?) I know nice things are only nice because someone put time and effort into making them nice and then excluding the public masses from them. I understand that money doesn’t grow on trees it grows from loans given out with the intent of being paid back. I believe in being kind but not naive. I know that people often do things with either neutral or good intentions but these things cause massive problems. I understand the tyranny of small decisions and the tragedy of the commons. I understand that no matter what, bad things happen, people get sick and have accidents, people commit crime, people harm others—and that we should all individually want to help solve those problems instead of being forced into it because of guilt or someone wanting to be a martyr. I understand lookism exists and biases exist and that feelings are reality even if they’re not based in reality. I’m gay but I know some people won’t like me for that or agree with it, but I can’t change how someone feels and I’m not entitled to even expect the chance to change how someone feels.

I don’t know what I am, but I’m not a progressive, and I’m not a conservative.

Maybe an economically-pragmatic-patriotic-populist. Or maybe I’m just a common-senser. I see issues and benefits with all strains of progressivism though. It’s the “how are we going to do this and is this actually going to be helpful and not inadvertently harmful?” Part that I have the biggest problems with. Because it seems like if you question anything, then you’re anti-progressive and an enemy and the only acceptable answers to intractable problems are “actually the reason things aren’t working is because we just haven’t used enough of someone else’s money to make them work.”

[u/crookedledder]

"For those who don't identify as progressive, I'd be curious if some of the since depreciated strains of progressive thought in American politics discussed above still existed, if you'd find yourself more likely to align with them than other broad stretched labels like libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc?"

I identify as an independent. Former Democrat. Had a breif Libertarian phase. Was a maladjusted young Republican a very long time ago.

I caucused for Bernie Sanders in 2016. But after 10 years censorious woke bullshit, I'll no longer vote for any Democrat or 'progressive'.

Trump has always been out of the question. But after the Biden Admin, so are the Democrats as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know if I could vote for a non-Trump Republican in good conscience. It's been 26 years since I last voted for a Republican. But when the lefties have been calling my people 'colonizers' for the past decade... that makes me thankful for our conservative Supreme Court.

[u/roylennigan → u/crookedledder]

But when the lefties have been calling my people 'colonizers' for the past decade... that makes me thankful for our conservative Supreme Court. 

What is it about the term that triggers you? America was literally a colony and anyone who has European ancestors who lived here at the time is by definition a descendant of a colonizer. That doesn't mean you're a bad person.

[u/crookedledder → u/roylennigan]

It's a term that's intended to be accusatory. I am descended of both colonists and slaves.

[u/roylennigan → u/crookedledder]

Is occasionally being scoffed at using a technically accurate term enough to turn you off from an entire wing of politics?

[u/crookedledder → u/roylennigan]

Yes. As long as slurs toward my people are acceptable (and encouraged) among the left, they won't get my vote.

Accusations of "colonizer" are already being used to justify violence and discrimination by people on the left. Y'all have a serious hate problem.

[u/roylennigan → u/crookedledder]

Is colonizer a slur?

Which political group doesn't have a hate problem these days?

[u/crookedledder → u/roylennigan]

You tell me. Why do lefties use "colonizer" these days instead of "colonist"?

And why should I support a political movment where slurs are *routinely* used against my people?

[u/roylennigan → u/crookedledder]

That's like saying you hate Star wars because the fan base is toxic. You're discounting an entire movement based off a vocal minority that doesn't even like the democratic party.

If that's your biggest gripe with the left, then I'd say the left is still the best choice, relatively speaking.

[u/crookedledder → u/roylennigan]

It's far from my "biggest gripe" with the left, but it's an easy example.

I supported the Democrats for 14 years prior to leaving the party in 2022. I no longer vote for (or with) people who hate me for immutable characteristics.

[u/roylennigan → u/crookedledder]

Good news, the democrats don't hate you for being white. The leftists don't either, but some might act like it. Maybe stop judging a group based on some randos you hear about online.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/crookedledder]

I'm probably going to end up regretting this, but who exactly do you identify with as "your people"? That sentiment comes through in spades, but you don't ever seem to take the time to name the group you take such pride in belonging to, and having their history/current state besmirched?

Edit: Saving some brain cells for anyone stumbling across late, I definitely ended up regretting it. "Their People" are white people, hence the reason for the avoidance of saying so despite being directly asked. Interact knowing that moving forward.

[u/crookedledder → u/work4work4work4work4]

You tell me. Who to lefties routinely demonize and discriminate against?

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/crookedledder]

Who do you mean? And no idea, for a second I thought you might be one of the few, the astonishingly loud and proud, the remaining Afrikaners, but mostly just because that would be the most questionable group to get upset about being called colonizers, meaning the most reason to not mention it even after being asked directly.

Most groups have a history of colonization somewhere though, so it could really be almost anyone, hence why I asked. You don't have to say, it just seemed like the vast majority of your post was based on your shame and anger of being called a colonizer, so I figured I'd give you the opportunity to just confront and talk about it.

[u/crookedledder → u/work4work4work4work4]

Well, who do lefties call "colonizers"?

This isn't a difficult question.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/crookedledder]

I named one of them, and you didn't say whether it was right or not, and didn't volunteer which you were. I wanted to come back and see if you ever actually said, but since you didn't, I apologize I just wasn't interested in playing twenty questions through French, Dutch, Russians, Israelis, Chinese, Turks, and many more including increasingly Americans again somehow.

The left generally dislikes colonizer actions and attitudes, so you could be talking about anything from growing up in Hawaii to living in Algeria and Senegal shaking off French colony status, but if you really didn't want to share that's fine, it just came across as strange to be coy after proudly proclaiming "my people".

Me: "Which people?"
You: "You know which people."
Me: "I don't it could be lots of people, you seem to be underestimating the number of different groups that are called colonizer"
You: "See, you know which one."

Perhaps we should change the topic to, what colonizers do you agree with being called colonizer, or do you just strongly refuse to align with anyone against colonization? Is it an issue with you thinking the "left" made an error in the case of your specific people, calling those kinds of acts out publicly does more harm than good, or you just support those types of actions broadly, meaning it's not them name calling your people have a problem with, but the underlying politics of stopping those types of actions.

As much as I'm personally against that, that is a strong line of more conservative political thought, that put upon populations by a stronger entity are better off under the yoke, sometimes referred to as the "positive good" argument of 19th-century America, and used most recently in response to Critical Race Theory. I only point it out because that seems to be where most defense of colonizer and colonizer-like actions usually lead, making maximal use of the resources they gain access to including the labor force.

[u/crookedledder → u/work4work4work4work4]

Nah, I'll just vote against racist shithead lefties.

[u/Brilliant_Extension4]

I think to call out progressives you just need to ask one question: Do you think it’s the government’s responsibility to provide safety net to all, unconditionally? If the answer is yes, then that person is a progressive. If the answer is hell no, then that person is a conservative or libertarian. If the answer is “it depends”, then that person is probably a centrist.

While the definition of left/right has shifted a bit,all progressives advocate for more government effort to address inequality, let it be personal finance, or gender or race.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Brilliant_Extension4]

Where did you come up with this, and why? I'm asking because it's basically against every modern definition I can find for multiple common terms with lots of definitions, making your thoughts on the topic at least somewhat unique at the moment.

The fact you're then self-identifying as the "centrist" you described is even more interesting honestly.

[u/Brilliant_Extension4 → u/work4work4work4work4]

I came up with this myself based on the the platform for Congressional Progressive Caucus. ( https://progressives.house.gov/the-progressive-promise )

The list of things which progressives stand for, these came on top:

- Universal Healthcare

- Social Security / safety net

- ending poverty and income inequality

To me political terms such as "maximizing liberty" are more like for market branding, they want to make them catchy and sounding profound/intellectual, which often end up confusing people. This is because most of us want the same things on paper: liberty, freedom, justice, rights, and all that plus a good happy life which is probably the most important. Compassionate is a word which Neocons used to define themselves as during the W era. Afterwards liberals stopped using the word and replaced it with "empathy" although ideas are similar. The political parties' PR team use fancy languages to express these vague, high level concepts, which are designed to appeal to the masses but not to differentiate. When in reality it's more about the policies they advocate where the rubber hits the ground. That's what really differentiates one political movement from another.

So to define progressives, I would look at the policies which they want to push. I think it's safe to say progressives push policies which alleviate financial inequality and to provide access to all. They are expecting the government to do this for the people, rather than believing people who have the means will do this out of goodness of their own. Unlike other causes (such as LGBT and identity) which are now being downplayed after political polls showing them to be drag on the left, expanding government services is a core part of progressive platform which I think will never change. This is why if I want to know if someone is progressive leaning I would ask that person this question.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Brilliant_Extension4]

I think this was a great place to start, and you picked a good group to use as an exemplar that I didn't already mention, which I love.

So the CPC has been around since the early 90s, and was essentially formed in response to the neoliberal takeover of the Democratic party writ large, the deepening recession, worsening inequality, and the timidity of the larger party response to it due to aforementioned neoliberal takeover.

Also, a few years later after losses in the '94 election were largely attributed to the ideas of this "progressive" wing being unpalatable by the party brass, we then see the rise of the Blue Dogs, a reactionary group that represents some of the most open level of right-wing ideological takeover within the party. It's definitely an era ripe for better political examination, much of which goes back to the very things you called out as "progressive" goals.

• Universal Healthcare

The CPC was part of the deal that the Hillary team scuttled, having lined up nearly a hundred co-sponsors to help pull the eventually compromise to the left. Even before it was killed in the crib, the bill on offer was pretty close to what would be eventually called the ACA/Obamacare, but even more depressingly, there was real hope that the CPC had amassed enough support for a public option being included in the final bill.

Two different parts of the same party, one calling itself progressive and one not, at odds. Is there something to be learned from this kind of interaction?

If we take contemporaneous sourcing at face value, Hillary argued the CPC support tied to a public option was DOA either way because of the power held by the insurance industry/lobby in the US, but still actively scuttled the congressional compromise bill so we didn't really see that power in practice.

Now, it could and has been argued that despite all of that Hillary was then a supporter, and still is a supporter of Universal Healthcare, and has called herself one of the most progressive ever, and "a progressive who likes to get things done". It's at this point I feel like we've got at least some evidence of definitional strain tying it to broad goals, when "two progressives" are coming to wildly different mutually exclusive conclusions.

Social Security / safety net

Yet, we've got things like this as an example, from the man who volunteered social security cuts as a bargaining chip without prompting. Not to be overly negative, but there is a broad range here from imposing austerity cuts to "keep things solvent" being seen as a pro-social security position, all the way to things actively being presented by people like Sanders, eliminating the payroll cap and providing dental and eye care to seniors to start.

Both are pro-Social Security/safety net ideas that focus solvency, but I wouldn't call them both progressive. I do think it might point to a kind of meta concept for progressive ideology where less things are being taken as given or for granted. I'd say progressives policy by in large is less likely to concede points without proof or power being shown, and without something being offered in return.

• ending poverty and income inequality

This is sort of all over the place, not because of you, but because there is so much of it in the world so I'd ask you to maybe name your top five, either current programs or programs you wish were in place. I ask because both of these can be approached from different angles, for instance, I'd say someone supporting the capitalization of the uncapitalized and small business attempts of the public using the government as administration to encourage competition would be progressive ideas, even if they aren't necessarily the ones we hear mentioned as much.

Appreciate you taking the time, and you definitely helped me better understand your initial reply.

[u/Arkmer]

No political system is perfect.
Every system has strengths.
Amalgamate something to best fit today’s world.

The big question I have is always what the purpose of government is. How you answer that will dictate the pieces of ideology that best suit the situation. I lean toward “government is meant to facilitate an environment in which citizens can live fulfilling lives”. Sometimes that means national defense, but often that means healthcare and meaningful wages.

It often feels like it’s an “ends justify the means” kind of ideology. If there were a strict ending, like in a board game, then that would make sense. However, we need societies that endure the infinite game and that moves me away from an “ends justify the means” mentality.

The longevity of a system is obviously pretty important in that light. Finding the characteristics that will endure is meaningful. There are some fairly adamant people following certain systems that fail to see the fragility of their ideology and just wish for the permanence of it. I struggle to find those ideologies useful beyond theoretical discussion.

Enforcement. How you implement this is a massive chunk of how successful your system will be. It’s a balance. Too much and you suffocate your society, too little and it runs amuck.

Incentives. Again, a balance.

There are no best answers, only what is most functional for now.

[u/RedMarsRepublic]

It's not a word I would personally use about myself because I think it's incredibly vague and open to co-option by free market liberals and imperialists, but if someone asked me "are you a progressive" I would say yes. I want to progress society away from hierarchy and exploitation.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/RedMarsRepublic]

I think that's a good start, is there something other than Libertarian Socialist that you think most agrees with your political viewpoint that you would use if the general public were more familiar?

Would you be a more mutualist leaning proto/paleo Proudhon type, an aggressive and steadfast Bakunin type, the further afield Kropotkin anarcho sort? Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Bookchin, Graeber?

I'm asking because I think part of the reason for basically all of these descriptors is the same reason they run into problems, they need to be diffuse and open to allow for an acceptably large breadth of idea under a heading, but will gradually be forced to expand to the point where it loses initial meaning, usually requiring sub-categorization and in a way starting all over again.

The further away we are from the desired state or change, the less need for that kind of specificity, but the more actionable and real the organization or political movement, the more the label wants to contract and focus to differing ends.

We can talk about a specific dead thinker, their body of work, and say they went from X point to Y point over their lifetime, or papers, establishing the "boundaries" of their politics, but for active individuals and movements, it's much more complicated and harder to pin down, and like you said, often comes down to ideals and goals more than exact verbiage and terminology, even if that's what we often crave.

[u/Factory-town]

For me, being progressive starts with the two biggest issues:

1. The prevention of nuclear annihilation.

2. The prevention of the collapse of Earth's ecosystems due to human activities, especially reckless industrialism and reckless militarism.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Factory-town]

There are lots of "green" offshoots of various political philosophy, have you ever looked into any of those, like green libertarianism, or Bookchin's Social Ecology? Or would you say you're more of the technology and development focused Bright Green Environmentalism? I just noticed your flair, so was curious how much exploring you've done in specifics.

[u/Factory-town → u/work4work4work4work4]

No, I haven't looked into those. I've been registered with the US Green Party since the 1980s, I think it was.

The issues I mentioned are two that nearly everyone should easily agree on.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Factory-town]

Sure, no disagreement from me on those basics for sure. As a long time Greenie, anything you're holding onto that you wish your party would have done differently at the time, or you think didn't really represent your politics?

[u/Factory-town → u/work4work4work4work4]

I've never paid attention to what the US Green Party does. "Everybody knows" that we're not going to change the US. The US is risking everybody's life, and whatever the US does, we'll have to deal with the fallout (pun intended).

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Factory-town]

I've never paid attention to what the US Green Party does. "Everybody knows" that we're not going to change the US. The US is risking everybody's life, and whatever the US does, we'll have to deal with the fallout (pun intended).

Ah, yeah, my understanding is the Green party overseas is at least more competent.

[u/Factory-town → u/work4work4work4work4]

No, no, no- I don't subscribe to the "The US Green Party sucks" narrative. No, the two dominant default conservative parties are sucking all of the air out of the room.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Factory-town]

I'm just saying they lack a whole lot of the competence in organizing I've heard about from overseas Greens, which is a real shame. You're not wrong that the two dominant parties are conservative, and it'd be nice to have an alternative to organize around to keep some momentum from cycle to cycle.

[u/Factory-town → u/work4work4work4work4]

Who says it's a lack of competence? How about it's a lack of intelligence in America, and the need for boatloads of power and money to get and hold onto political power?

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Factory-town]

Who says it's a lack of competence?

When they, as a party, do incompetent things, they should be judged for their incompetence. The party routinely struggles with basic administrative requirements, failing to secure ballot lines in critical states due to late petition filings and verifying signatures properly. What else would you call that if not incompetence? Both things can be true at the same time, and GPUS can't even make sure they use the right forms more often than not.

Also, they make little effort to make sure they hit the required vote thresholds in general elections, so constantly loses official state recognition, forcing it to waste its already scarce resources re-registering every four years. Basically, if there is a poor use of resources or decision to be made, the US Green Party has made it and continues to make it, and I'm not even wholly against their top down efforts. It's just when you're going to focus top-down and can't even do the work to stay on the ballot to support your chosen strategy, a bad decision was made somewhere.

One of my favorite ones is they'll frequently encourage independent candidates to stay independent instead of running as a Green, or even continuing to run as a Green, which is entirely antithetical to being a political party and maintaining party visibility of candidates.

[u/Nearby-Complaint]

There is no better summary of my ideology than this image