Because “progressive” is itself a more liberal term with its basis in inevitable, linear societal development. It often functions to naturalize the continuation of a liberal-capitalist on the assertion that “progress” (which can be either the institutionalization of social justice values or economic growth, depending on the period) is inevitable except when impeded by bad actors “misusing” what is fundamentally a stratified and violent system.

Unsurprisingly then, socialism is not very compatible with this basis save for the oftem-shared (though not necessary) idealized arc of social development and the more colloquial understandings of “progress” that are more in reference to a vague sense of social justice and its association with the more egalitarian, collectivist politics socialists subscribe to. Since socialists are also often quite mired in the linguistic specificities of political ideologies and rhetoric (for good reason), it would also create complications where further alienation of this word from its liberal use while maintaining its underlying political and social meanings could put socialist values even more at risk at appropriation by “progressive” liberal thinkers or politicians.

What you’re describing is exactly that, the process by which liberals appropriate potentially challenging ideals and politics into their logical frameworks and effectively disarm dissenting movements by forcing them to integrate liberal values into their talking points if they wish to negotiate at least a marginally “better” chance at the adoption of their politics. We are living in the consequences of this when Democrats can claim ownership over queer and anti-racist politics while they consistently erode the rights and securities that those groups gained through more radical and disruptive politics than what is currently tolerated by them.The current wave of trans genocide in the US is very much a consequence of the liberal adoption of queer rights and social justice into their political rhetoric and platforms performatively, and therefore removed from the fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-liberalism elements of anti-heteronormativity and anti-patriarchy.

What you’re talking about may seem to make sense intuitively --adjust the language to something with less propaganda baggage – but the problem is that this has failed multiple times in less than a century, and “Americanized Socialism” is already something Democrats have established when they argue that basic welfare liberal policies are somehow “leftist” policies. Since we all must be conscious of the coming genocides liberals 100% intend to commit in response to climate change, it is even harder to argue we have time to do anything else but clearly delineate their politics from what must be done in reality.

Totally love this idea. It’s insidious enough that it just might work. “Pro-democracy! Pro-employee! Pro-consumer! Pro-family!” And then a wild card like “pro-football!” or something for plausible deniability and to appeal to the blue collar vote.

(also fyi the word you mean is “tenets”)

I love the fact that people are dumb enough for this to work.