These are topics that progressives need to avoid like the plague and give nonanswers to and change the subject like republicans do to avoid getting outed as progressives and not republicans.
I enjoy seeing RFK Jr advocate for progressive environmental politics; (despite our differences). It feels like RFK Jr is triangulating the Democratic party establishment on environmental issues.
I don’t think that being progressive is mutually exclusive with being republican; it is just a different flavor of progressive. So, when you write about “being outed”, I don’t think I agree with your perspective, which seems to me to imply that a progressive republican would be inauthentic; or maybe I don’t understand what you mean about “being outed”. For instance, I could see a republican flavor of progressive with a pro-life position; a republican progressive with a pro-life position need not “avoid” that topic, and maybe should actually lean into it.
Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding you!
Given the term progressive has been associated with socialism and Republicans have voters terrified of the word, you don’t want to be a progressive running Republican saying you’re not pro-choice or going against “republican values.” I don’t see that candidate winning a Republican seat. As I’ve said in other posts when the name Justice republican was used to define a republican progressive a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. The point of the matter is to run in both political parties by appealing to the voters who support the parties ideologies. Given a Republican who is not pro-choice would have a much more difficult time winning (especially when your topical progressive leans the other way) I simply said avoid the topic and change the subject because I wouldn’t want our candidate to have to break their convictions and lie. If you change the subject it’s not a lie. Here you can get into semantics about omition of can be the same as a lie but republicans have been playing this game for so long beating democrats with it. I’m simply saying beat them at their own game. I’ve also mentioned this in another post stating we should get celebrities with high star power backed and advised by progressives as republicans have done well with this.
If a progressive was to be pro choice and ran republican that would be a different story. I agree with you… Talk away… it could be me but I just don’t foresee many pro choice progressives stepping up to run Republican.
Now I’ve also stated in another post republicans and progressives have many things in common. We just have different ways to go about solving the problems.
Thanks for clarifying! Your point about the perceptions of the progressive label is well received; populist may be a better descriptor for some respects, (especially in practice!). Much of this thread’s focus is on the overlap of progressive and populist positions, and to argue how progressives’ gain from politically focusing on that overlap to run republican.
The pro-life/choice example is primarily illustrative of that.
For instance, a hypothetical republican representative is personally pro-choice but represents a predominately pro-life constituency. They could clarify the distinction, how their duty is to represent their constituents’ position, regardless of their own position; (they may even still politically lean into the issue in that way, or may only clarify when pressed, or they could indeed just avoid the topic). Such a representative (for example) could be focused on other policy issues representative of their constituents’ interests, such as corporate capture of government regulation.
(Like how when RFK Jr’s rhetoric on environmental and public health blames corporate capture, then the populist right and the progressive left can build a political bridge on that issue, regardless of RFK Jr’s non-progressive positions).
If the alternative to that populist republican example was an establishment republican representative, similarly representing the pro-life position, but instead enabling corporate capture, then the populist republican is a better option for essentially everyone, (especially including even pro-choice progressives). And so, progressives maybe ought organize to support the populist nature of the republican party, even potentially running progressives as populist republicans where applicable.