types that are both genetically determined and formed by environment. These traits are manifested in different strengths, mild, moderate, hot, and have a big influence on which political views are adopted. There is no "moderate" personality type. The more extreme some on both left and right become. the more they start taking on shared extremist traits and the less they resemble most liberals and conservatives.

There are a number of fascinating differences, but psychologists say the single biggest ideological difference between liberals and conservatives is in their views toward equality. Liberals are the kind of people who could write "all men are created equal" and "all men are entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" into a constitution. Our form of government of, by and for the people is known as a western liberal democracy.

Conservatives not only tend to not believe in equality of all men, but they are also much more comfortable with inequality -- not just toward those they see as below each of them but also toward those they see as above them. They tend to believe in a natural order that rewards superiority, punishes failure to perform, and tends to elevate society's best into positions of influence. (They're not so stupid they don't realize it doesn't always work that way.)

Politically, they believe that (too much) government interference will lead to degradation and destruction of society. Political weaponizing of this simplistic natural order idea against progressivism and liberalism has elevated it to almost the status of a religious belief on the right -- not so difficult because it was old millennia before the humanism of The Enlightenment and is an intrinsic part of most religions.

Progressivism is the use of organizations, private and government, to generate advances and solve problems that individuals and private groups can't or won't do. In this era to be liberal is to be progressive.

Belief in at least some progressivism can be found all across the political spectrum, from the extremes right across the center; even some mild libertarians believe in some limited progressivism in government, and there is such a thing as right-wing authoritarian. Eisenhower described himself proudly as a progressive conservative, as did many others on the right. The powers that have taken over the GOP in this era have mostly purged progressives and done their best to turn voters against progressive government, with limited success. The trumpsters and the social-conservative populists among Sanders' followers on the left are generally progressive, even if some want those benefits reserved for the deserving -- i.e., people like themselves.

response. I have noted many times that I have never known a liberal who wasn't progressive.

over 200 years that I'd first wonder what that person thought liberal was.

These terms are all tremendously misused, both innocently and far from. Always understanding the influence of personality traits gives a solid orientation to evaluate from.

Right now the right is trying to fool their voters that liberals are intrinsically fascist and trying to impose a fascist state. Those who understand the personality traits underlying ideologies can't be fooled. Liberals by nature are the anti-fascists. Fascism is not just a conservative but an archconservative form of government. But, it can and often does include progressive programs...

"Liberalism is the individual. Fascism is the state." ~ Benito Musselini

So much so that they serve little constructive purpose.

We can add "socialist" to that list, as well, since we have people promoting the Nordic Model and conflating it with socialism.

As for Republicans, we should probably be calling them reactionaries. Greedy, unethical reactionaries who do all they can to foment and exploit racism and sexism in order to maintain the viability of the Republican Party.

And then you've got those on the left who cut off their collective nose to spite their collective face. They don't recognize that there's strength in numbers and that progressive policy reform is only possible if more Democrats are elected, which sometimes requires voting for people you aren't absolutely wild about (people who are more likely to push for progressive reform if they are part of a majority). They also don't recognize the truth of what Stacey Abrams wrote about identity politics: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-02-01/stacey-abrams-response-to-francis-fukuyama-identity-politics-article.

if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

Confucius over 2500 years ago. He knew that manipulators find words of TREMENDOUS use and can use them to destroy cultures and bring down whole nations.

Misunderstood and weaponized political words won't disappear. Quite the contrary, so it's critically important to define them, use them properly, and call out weaponized uses for what they are.

"Reactionaries" has traditionally been the right-wing corollary to "radicals" on the left, both referring to people who lean toward extremist views and behaviors and hostility toward anyone who isn't with them 100%. 80% agreement is not enough for them, as many posters on political forums find. That "reaction" thing.

Radical has a couple of meanings, of course. It can mean any idea that isn't commonly accepted for implementation at the present time, "out of the box"; the idea doesn't have to be at all extremist or "radical."

"Radical" mentality, though, is typically used to describe less than flat-out extremist mentality, but from what I've read both are characterized by inappropriate righteousness and intolerance of other ideas. It's just a matter of degree. They are always sure we are on the brink of great disaster (even when most don't agree) and that they are the only ones who can save us. Belief in the need for ruthless solutions, untethered from normal rules, are common. They get very angry and excited about all those who don't recognize their wisdom, which is most people, thank goodness.

The MSM have been avoiding using "extremism" and "radicalism," and with their growth I think that's a dangerous mistake. Political scientists are greatly worried about the rise of extremism on both right and left and growing right-wing extremism in government. It's scary-real, and we need to start using these words accurately and honestly.

I don't disagree. But to say that's an uphill battle would be a massive understatement. Our media is so incredibly fragmented, our Internet so full of nonsense, and our education system so terribly lacking. On top of all that, this is the 3rd most populous and 3rd largest (in terms of area) nation in the world. Dissemination of information is fraught with detours.

We believe in democracy, capitalism, equal rights, and secularism.

Progressives push for social change - like prohibition and gun bans without regard to what voters want. Liberals don't.

Prohibition of the 1920's was part of the Progressive Movement. It failed.

We've really hit a time warp.

are two very different things. Lower-case progressives are all people who support progressivism in government.

Heck, Richard Nixon, as an example, was very progressive on many domestic issues, including creating the "EPA, the Clean Air and Water Acts, the earned income tax credit, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Endangered Species Act," OSHA, and the first affirmative action programs, and he enforced desegregation of schools, among a bunch of other progressive actions. Nixon even wanted to create a national healthcare program.

If even Nixon was often progressive, how about all of US?!

Now, the capital-P Progressive political faction styles itself as the Only True Progressives, but that's profoundly wrong; and since they can't cooperate with the great majority of progressives, they're too often ultimately harmful to progressive goals. In fact, because capital-P Progressives are a political faction and prone to extremism, in righteously promoting themselves over larger progressive factions they even sometimes deliberately oppose progressive goals pursued by other political factions -- such as joining the Republicans in fighting to repeal the ACA, and of course to replace it, though that would have been totally impossible then and so far still is. All with only the highest principles, of course. (That's sarcasm, but most do manage to believe it.)

In any case, they can't have that word. Serving progressivism requires using it properly.