Why do more progressives than moderates seem to come off as “authentic”?

[Hardkill]

Lately, I’ve been reflecting on something I’ve noticed in U.S. politics — specifically within the Democratic Party.

Progressives often feel more authentic than moderate Democrats. Even when people don’t agree with their ideas, they often say: “At least I know what this person really believes.”

Meanwhile, moderates tend to sound more calculated or scripted — even if they may actually be more pragmatic or experienced in governance.

So, why is this?

Is it simply that:

Progressives’ messages align more closely with their moral convictions, giving off a stronger sense of integrity and passion?

Or that moderates, by definition, have to balance multiple constituencies and compromise, which naturally dilutes perceived authenticity?

Or could this be a media/psychological phenomenon, where our brains reward moral clarity and “unfiltered” communication — even if it’s less nuanced?

From a Spiral Dynamics or consciousness-development perspective, maybe progressives are expressing Stage Green idealism (values-based authenticity), while moderates often operate from late Orange/early Green pragmatism — more focused on results and systemic stability than on “vibe” consistency.

It also raises a deeper question:

Is political authenticity about being true to your values, or about being honest about the trade-offs you’re willing to make to get things done?

 

Edited yesterday at 05:33 AM by Hardkill

[Apparition of Jack]

Any genuine attempt to understand the world’s problems inevitably lead to a progressive outlook. Capitalism as it stands has turned into a nightmarish leviathan that exists to suck the life out of modern society.

Being a moderate means to live under the delusion that somehow this leviathan can be tolerated or reasoned with. It can’t. That’s why we got Trump. 
 

 

[Hardkill]

19 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

Any genuine attempt to understand the world’s problems inevitably lead to a progressive outlook. Capitalism as it stands has turned into a nightmarish leviathan that exists to suck the life out of modern society.

Being a moderate means to live under the delusion that somehow this leviathan can be tolerated or reasoned with. It can’t. That’s why we got Trump. 
 

But being a hardcore progressive/leftist doesn't work for winning the greatest amount of power.

[trenton]

4 hours ago, Hardkill said:

But being a hardcore progressive/leftist doesn't work for winning the greatest amount of power.

Does this mean that we will need to disguise ourselves as right wing fascists with the strategy to pretend to support billionaires so they are not alert to what is happening as they lobby against us? We would have to publicly talk about things like meritocracy and free market while downplaying the harms of capitalism. We would then make policies packages as something that gives billionaires more money and keeps wages low, which the government is doing anyway by the way. Then we would find ways to sneak in policies that seem to help billionaires at first but which have down stream effects that ultimately help the poor and gives them more power instead.

If you are too open about the problems of the world and those in power, then they will crush you. This might be a noble or necessary lie to work around it.

What would you think if I were someone who appeared to be a right wing capitalist fascist but was secretly working to undermine them? Would you consider me very conscious or very unconscious?

[Schizophonia]

Marxism is a coherent ideology; the far right can also be coherent.
When you're in the middle, "centrist," there's no software; it's essentially cowardly support for the status quo.
The center is meant to give way to coherent software, paradigms, epistemiologies—call it what you will.

[Elliott]

They don't to me. I would hazard a guess that they do to you because they're so emotional and reactive. 

[enchanted]

5 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Meanwhile, moderates tend to sound more calculated or scripted — even if they may actually be more pragmatic or experienced in governance.

Everything they say is scripted, poll tested, and they generally play it way too safe and by the book. It one of the biggest factors of why they lost according to many political commentators. 

[BlueOak]

Its easy to be authentic when you are saying exactly what you believe, right or wrong, you'll more easily come across as authentic. If it aligns with the masses they like you.

When you have scripts to follow, numbers to juggle, donors to please, backroom deals to take into account etc, its a lot harder to just say what you want to say.

So centrists who take large money donations have a more difficult job. 

[Basman]

Leftists may feel strongly about their ideals but many of their ideas tend to not be organically derived, but derived via osmosis and group think. Which is even more true for conservatives. Coming off as authentic doesn't mean your not being influenced by one's relative zeitgeist in an unconscious fashion. 

Or another way of phrasing, their diagnosis may be derived organically, but their solutions tend to be less original because politics is hard and very complicated and they may not be interested in questioning their beliefs. Centrists on the other hand tend to be more pragmatic and think in terms of cold hard facts.

[Hardkill]

So, progressives can’t win much power because they will always be too radical for most Americans. Meanwhile,  moderates are becoming less electable because people are tired of them sounding like soulless vessels who lack conviction, sound too rehearsed, don’t answer the questions like everyday people, come off as too pro-establishment/too pro-status quo, and have no clear bold reason for why they are running for office. 
 

I really feel so dejected about all of this….

[kguirnela]

2 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So, progressives can’t win much power because they will always be too radical for most Americans. Meanwhile,  moderates are becoming less electable because people are tired of them sounding like soulless vessels who lack conviction, sound too rehearsed, don’t answer the questions like everyday people, come off as too pro-establishment/too pro-status quo, and have no clear bold reason for why they are running for office. 
 

I really feel so dejected about all of this….

Voters are to blame because their retarded. Also blackpill letfties like TYT, Secular Talk, Majority Rerport, Vaush etc are to blame because they have conditioned people & myself (ex tyt listener) for years that both parties are the same 

 

[Nivsch]

Moderates can be above or below progressives. It depends on the depth of their arguments.

Edited 9 hours ago by Nivsch

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I really feel so dejected about all of this….

The death of idealism will eventually bring about pragmatism. Its hard I feel you.

You may come to one or multiple conclusions. 

1, This is why things are as they are. We've got the best we are going to get in America.
2, Multiple-party systems would work better.
3, The system is in a natural drift to the right till it either gets a big leftwing snap back, or turns into a dictatorship.
4, Centrists aren't so bad.
5, A two-state solution might work better.
6, Idealism has its place to drive the masses. People who hate on the progressives or the moderates doom the country to fail, as both are needed to have any hope of reversing this.
7, I hate X Side of this. (Not so helpful) - This is common one.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by BlueOak

[Basman]

4 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So, progressives can’t win much power because they will always be too radical for most Americans. Meanwhile,  moderates are becoming less electable because people are tired of them sounding like soulless vessels who lack conviction, sound too rehearsed, don’t answer the questions like everyday people, come off as too pro-establishment/too pro-status quo, and have no clear bold reason for why they are running for office. 
 

I really feel so dejected about all of this….

Voters are responsible for needing politics to be a reality drama for them to even care. 

I think if voting was mandatory it would help make politics less tribalistic.

[BlueOak]

18 minutes ago, Basman said:

I think if voting was mandatory it would help make politics less tribalistic.

It would also lead to people who neither know nor care who they vote for randomly voting or the more rebellious just writing nonsense on the vote.

You can't force people to care or be engaged in the political process. 

You can better represent those unrepresented, but neither political party in America (and few in the UK) want to. At least here outside of local elections I can usually find a party I don't loathe. 

You can also better engage them proactively, like stepping outside of the usual venues.

Edited 8 hours ago by BlueOak

[Basman]

19 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

It would also lead to people who neither know nor care who they vote for randomly voting or the more rebellious just writing nonsense on the vote.

You can't force people to care or be engaged in the political process. 

You can better represent those unrepresented, but neither political party in America (and few in the UK) want to. At least here outside of local elections I can usually find a party I don't loathe. 

You can also better engage them proactively, like stepping outside of the usual venues.

It works just fine for Australia. You can just vote blank if you don't want to vote for anyone. It should really be mandatory in every democratic society because you can't have a functioning democracy if people aren't voting. 

A cool one third of the population in America don't even bother voting at all. Parties are incentivized to cater to tribalism, as they are the only one who cares. You get a discourse dominated by extremes.

Of course Americans are going to dislike the idea of mandatory anything that impedes with their freedom to be lazy and irresponsible.

[zazen]

What do progressives want?

One can be authentic about their values while being authentic about how to realistically achieve the closest version of them in the real world. Values are aspirations, not expectations we should impose on a messy world in which we will imperfectly attain them.

Sometimes (a lot of the time) you don't get good things by sounding or solely doing what looks good on the surface. This isn't a moral purity test, life isn't only real social (socialist) dynamics where we can sit in a hippie camp and sing, but is where real power dynamics need to be accounted for. Powers need to be buffered by principles, but power dynamics shouldn't be denied all together or the reality of them.

Soft hearted values mean shit without the hard reality of having the power to execute on and maintain them - but the liberal reflex is opposed to the methods because it looks ''mean'', even if the method is the means to the closest version of their ideal ends (social welfare, good living standards, safety from crime, equality under the law)

See what Singapore became from nothing and what it took. Governance and civilization building isn't about political purity tests and authenticity as much as it is about political pragmatism, boldness and a benevolent wielding of power. Philosopher king type sheeet.

Just came across a Bloomberg article yesterday on Singapore - one of the best pension systems in the world: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-14/these-are-the-world-s-best-and-worst-pensions-in-2025#:~:text=Singapore has broken into the top tier of an annual,CFA Institute Global Pension Index.

Again - what do progressives want? 

Edited 6 hours ago by zazen

[Leo Gura]

It is easy to be authentic when you hold no power and no responsiblity.

Venting online is very authentic. But it's a freedom people in positions of responsibility and power mostly do not have.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura