I think I might have an idea. They refuse to discuss what the definition of "liberal" or "progressive" are because as in discussions of conservatism, that issue often tends to seriously divide the participants and cause much hoopla / kerfuffle.
So leftists, being ever strategery(sic)-minded, come up with some excuse to shift the topic to instead talk about the things that divide their opponents, such as "what is conservatism?" or "what has the new president done that disappoints you the most?" or "let's talk about why you conservatives need to vote for your 'values' while we 'Crats are uniting behind the most Marxist candidate that can win!!"
It's not rocket science, but the leftists have all gotten fairly good at working the mechanisms of demagoguery. It all goes waaaaaaaay back to Newton Minnow and Marshal McLuhan explaining how the "medium is the message". It's called (wait for it) "controlling the narrative".
Actors do it instinctively in personal discussions. This methodology has achieved cliché status:
Actor:( sucking the air out of the room) Enough about me, let's talk more about me!!
There should be a book like the Art of War for our times - maybe call it "The Art of Soft Warfare". There is going to be a chapter about "controlling the mass media narrative".
Whenever I ask a self-described leftist to articulate their ideology, policy stance or position on issues, all I get are evasions and lame attempts to redirect the discussion to things that serve the needs of LEFTISTS like the flaws, shortcomings or bad habits of conservatives.
Sewing dissension in the ranks is a tactic that is as old as Cane and Able.
