whoever wrote this should be taught to use correct terminology to talk about the enemy, not their preferred terms like liberal or progressive. they are neither. They are fascist leftists. And they should be addressed as such.
You are not talking about liberals....they are like unicorns... a figment of the imagination these days
Ideally, titles for political schools of thought should be avoided unless they literally describe the position being taken. For example, I like Mark Levin’s pet name for leftists - “Statists” - because there is little or no ambiguity, or possibility of misunderstanding.
After all, we are talking about those who put their faith in the state, in the collective, vs. the individual. “Collectivist” or “redistributionist” are pretty good names too, but perhaps too limited to the economic aspects of social interaction. Leftists may even proudly call themselves “Statists”, as it sounds like “Statesman”.
With the names like “Progressive”, “Liberal”, “Socialist” or “Leftist”, the meaning is subjective because the name itself does not really describe the position.
For we “non-statists” it’s hard to find an ideal title - you can’t say “individualist”, because that sounds like a personality type. “Libertarian” would have been a good name, but has become associated with isolationism and pacifism.
I sometimes call myself a “limited government conservative” or “constitutional conservative”, but maybe “non-statist” is the best Incan come up with.
At least with an unfamiliar name like “non-statist”, most people won’t assume they know what I am - they’ll ask me and I’ll at least get to explain in my own terms.
The best example I know of how the conventional political titles have been rendered useless, is a disconnect that occurs whenever a self-described conservative political pundit is talking or writing about foriegn policy:
As “conservatives”, they would naturally stress that the US is not a Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, and that liberalism is a bad thing, and conservatism good. Yet, whenever the context is foriegn nations, human rights, and the need to coax developing nations toward the ideal - the term used tor that ideal is always “liberal democracy”!
What a confusing message to hear self-described conservative republicans lecturing about how developing nations should strive toward the ideal of liberal democracy!