As I said in a previous post, I hate labels. However, most Americans are comfortable with their use, although the mainstream media incorrectly applies them. The definition of a progressive is someone that advocates social reform or new, liberal ideas. Moderate, used as a noun, has no real meaning at all, and use of it as such is disingenuous. A more descriptive label would be "less progressive". A label that should be used more by the media, but is not, is reactionary, which means a person opposing political or social liberalization or reform. This is a word that correctly describes a large portion of the Republican party, and perhaps the Hubert Humphrey...I mean Joe Biden....wing of the Democratic party. The mainstream media has no issue throwing around the progressive label, which has been spun as somewhat derogatory in this country, but why don't they apply the reactionary label when appropriate?
The mainstream media loves their expert talking heads on any subject under the sun. A partial eclipse in Fiji...they have it covered. When it comes to having an expert explain what or how single payer health care could be accomplished in this country, or real (not corporate) tax reform (or Yang's Value Added Tax (VAT) ideas), they suddenly can find no expert that supports, or can articulate these issues to the public? Instead we get sound bites or words from the politicians themselves, then a bunch of mainstream media gasbags commenting on "the atmospherics", or how it won't play in Peoria etc. Why can't they get an expert on universal health care or VAT on their panel once in a while? The only thing I can figure is that it is somehow disadvantageous to their corporate bottom line. Billionaires pretty much run the mainstream media, as well as the country, so we should not be surprised they would not be in favor of tax breaks for real people, or a revised health care system. Since a good portion of Americans watch and listen to these cable gasbags, their lack of coverage of these progressive proposals is a grave journalistic disservice.
To makes matters worse...
I have written before the uphill battle female politicians already have. If they are tough then they are referred to as "angry" or "crazy". If they are smart and articulate they are "shrill" or "know it alls". If they become emotional then they are "hysterical". Are male politicians described this way? So of course if women are progressives, then they have to overcome the female stereotypes that men have used since time began, and then also get no help from the media on the issues they are proposing. We all know what Biden stands for...the guy is like 90 and has been a career politician since I was a teenager. I don't need more talking heads explaining his views, but I am sure people would be interested in hearing some more experts discuss the details of what Warren and Yang are proposing.
Don't hold your breath
You are not going to get much help understanding some of these more progressive proposals from the mainstream media. If you really want to formulate an opinion, then it will require some digging (not on social media). You need to ask the right questions. "How are we going to pay for it?" is a bad question. "What are we paying for now?" and is that ok with you, is the question you should be asking.