So, if someone identifies as a progressive, let’s pretend they lead the more “progressive” party in the House, but work through the DCCC to undermine the left, pay tribute to Pete Peterson on the House floor, support austerity and brag about how good they are at raking in bribes, are they “progressive” because they say they are? If so, would Stalin have been a conservative capitalist if he called himself one? If so, I am the best looking human in history. There, objective reality changed. If a working person supports single payer, publicly funded elections, publicly funded higher education, public banking, worker ownership, among other things, but doesn’t do so for ideological reasons, are they “progressive”? What the hell does it matter? Support single payer, and other things associated with the left and call yourself an invisible goblin for all I give a damn. Pelosi can call herself whatever she wants, she’s a corrupt politician that has enriched herself while in office and works in many ways to undermine the left. AOC doesn’t have to be begged to do what over 80% of her own party wants regarding single payer. If it makes you feel better, call AOC a centrist since she is far more in the center of popular opinion on the issues than the people you support and call “centrist”.
Evo Morales, for example, was a former cocoa grower union leader that didn’t have tons of formal education and came from a poor, working class background. First indigenous leaders in a country where indigenous people are a large percentage of the population. That is inconceivable in this rotten political system.
Funny though that rich folks are surprised that working people want to avoid the end of human civilization, and would prefer to do so in a democratic and relatively equitable fashion. The elites are perfectly happy to see the world collapse as long as they get to keep their capitalist system.