The left is not a hivemind. There are people who self-identify as liberals but not progressives, and there are people who self-identify as progressives but not liberals, and there's those who mix and match.
Ive actually noticed that really there appears to be a pretty interesting split between progressives and conservatives. Leaving the middle "liberals" (really from both sides) caught in an awkward situation.
For example, being liberal usually implies greater freedoms, such as being pro-choice. However, it can also be pro-gun ownership, or anti-war, pro-research, etc. To me that's the dichotomy the U.S. is facing is really about the progressives and religeous conservatives duking it out, but (I'd argue) most people are much more moderate.
It's interesting to me that a third party (libertarians, or someone else) can't capture that group. As many liberals differ pretty substantially from the progressives, and concervative minded people just lump liberals and them together because they all identify as Democrats
I think those labels aren't really helpful when discussing individuals. A lot of people are in pretty much every part of the political spectrum simultaneously.
In fact, I prefer to classify political views differently, by splitting them into two buckets: those who have figured out that every issue needs an actually effective solution, and those who follow their ideologies blindly.
I self-identify as liberal and not progressive, for the most part, but I still consider myself to be on the left, not on the middle.
For the most part, my politics are similar to progressives - higher taxes, public healthcare, more expansive welfare (I support UBI), and social justice in general.
The reason why I don't consider myself a progressive is that I feel that the progressive ideology in US has largely abandoned the traditional concept of natural individual rights in pursuit of all these goals. You have people openly claiming that freedom of speech is not worth it if it gets in the way of criminalizing offensive speech, for example. Or how due process is an outdated notion that makes it hard to prosecute sexual harassment properly. Basically, the further left you go with progressives, the more individual rights are sacrificed to collective ones.
That, to me, is the line past which you can no longer meaningfully call yourself a liberal, since liberalism is all about individual rights, ultimately. Where left-wing and right-wing liberals differ is on the matter on how to best maximize those rights, and to what extent government regulation is advantageous or detrimental to that, especially on economic matters.
And, to some extent, on what those rights are, precisely - for example, I don't consider property rights to be fundamental natural rights (but then again, neither did Thomas Jefferson, and he sure wasn't left-wing!). Note, it doesn't mean that property is a bad idea - I think it's a social construct that is broadly useful, it's just not an absolute right (and hence taxation and wealth redistribution is not inherently an infringement on such).
Same issue in the Uk. Momentum (militant whacko commies) have been trying to claim everyone who is against May and her various ruinous policies should vote for Corbyn and his various ruinous policies.
Fortunately in the UK there's another voice at the table in between the extremes. People tend not to vote for them because of fear, and a misunderstanding of the soft power available in politics.
Steven Pinker talked about the idea of the "Left Pole". A mythical place where any belief that doesn't conform to your ideology appears to be right leaning. You can say the same thing about the right.
If I started a political party and wanted to capture myself. I'd just steal all the good ideas from all the parties.
Yep, I'd argue the results of the last election were the hard core conservatives and progressives duking it out with no one in the middle (the moderates or traditional liberals) with anyone to vote for. I say this because Trump got less votes than Romney and Hillary didn't bring the numbers Obama. People thought Hillary was a shoe in because that's what CNN and NY Times was reporting from their polls and didn't really have a candidate so stayed home. The more gerrymandering and other factors polarized politics further making moderate candidates untenable, the more a lot of people will just abstain as moderates feel left out of the political process.
The libertarians and socialists will both sometimes disagree with the social progressives, but disagree on most everything else. We need at least 6 or 7 parties to even come close, but under first past the post, it's impossible.
Personally, I would prioritize extensive political reform and reconstruction, but I fear the level of financial capture and constitution worship in the United States makes thus impossible.
