Talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus

Members
Dennis Kucinich stepped down as co-chair but he's still a member, so I've restored him to the list. I've also made some other changes based on the membership list on the Caucus website. Nancy Pelosi was a member but is no longer; according to this article, she's stated a policy of not belonging to caucuses now that she's the party leader. JamesMLane 08:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There are far more members of this caucus than what is listed. I'm certain of it. I'm certain numerous left-wing Reps are in this caucus, but hiding their membership. I can think of at least 15 members who are trying to hide this fact. Jackie Speier (CA), Kathy Castor (FL), Russ Carnahan (MO), Anthony Weiner (NY) and Bruce Braley (IA) come to mind. DavidSteinle (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page has been vandalized. Would someone please revert it to Jan 10? Also, please consider locking it, since there appears to be a long history of vandalism.

"socialist" description of Bernie Sanders
While Bernie Sanders certainly self-describes as a socialist, calling him "the socialist Congressman" in the introduction (and in context of founding the caucus), feels off to me, and insufficiently encyclopedeaic. I have changed it to "the independent (and self-described socialist) Congressman", as a compromise (because I do think that it is germane to the topic).

Notapipe 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideology
Comments on their ideology. Two fallacies in this group's wording: progressive & fairness. Redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who have not developed the skills to adequately support themselves, is not progress & not fair. Economic growth isn't helped by taking money from the people who create value & giving it to others. For one thing, it takes away incentive to better yourself. Free enterprise is based upon rewards & liberty. The many regulations are detrimental too. Their principles sound good, but the Congressmen don't have much idea on how capitalism operates. Some basic economic & business courses would help. Republicans mess things up. Both parties need to reform or we should have a viable third option that adheres to the Constitution & limited government. Scottit68.180.38.41 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 8.17.07
 * Thanks for that. - Matthew238 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what does your opinion have in relevance to this article? First of all "progressive" is a fair adjective because it describes their ideology; perhaps you should look up the wiki page on Progressivism. Second of all favoring a more progressive taxation system is not taking money from one to group to just hand to another. The people who would be in the top bracket are millionaires and billionaires and their level of taxes do not affect their lifestyles and can easily afford it. This group favors increased spending on welfare to equalize opportunity by providing benefits to the lower class to help them help themselves, nor do they favor total economic equalization. These people do not advocate dismantling capitalism; they favor increased consumer protection and regulation to prevent financial meltdowns like we've had. Democrats take the middle position compared to free-market conservatives and pure socialists who favor eradicating capitalism. I would imagine that many in congress have a better understanding of economics than you or I, but special interests and greed often take precedent. People such as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman favor a welfare state and often point to the successes of Scandinavian and European countries with strong economies and large welfare systems. I added this for balance but would prefer neither of our personal opinions to be on this page; from now on lets not inject our opinions into either the talking page or the article.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressive means totalitarian political stances such as socialism, fascism, wefare statism, nanny statism and police statism. Perhaps this should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.104.19 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, & remember that the talk page is not a forum. But since you have said so, I believe in free speech, and nobody wants factually incorrect stuff on Wikipedia, point to a fascist who has ever described themselves as "progressive," or any member of the CPC who overtly supports some sort of communal ownership system (e.g. socialism) or expanding the police/surveillance state (e.g. statism). Jerrytheman9 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Should "Democratic Socialism" be added as an ideology. I know of at least two members of the caucus that are associated with democratic socialism (AOC and Rashida Tlaib.) I am not sure if Ariana Presley and Ilhan Omar describe themselves as such though. However with another round of progressive primary wins from the left (Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman were endorsed by DSA) that will double that number to at least 4 Gnostic1980 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

POV
I have removed a sentence commenting on the validity of the Caucus's positions, as well as the unsubstantiated description of the Caucus as socialist. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also removed the following:  In 2000, the Democratic Socialists of America expressed solidarity with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, since they both shared "operative social democratic politics."
 * Besides not accurately reflecting the text, it's way out of date. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Map of Districts Represented by Progressive Caucus Members
There is a map of districts represented by Blue Dog Democrats but I notice there's not one for the Progressives. Why is this? And could we have one made?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - you should do this. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad I don't have the slightest idea how to do it. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did one, and it's in the House members section, though it's kind of underwhelming, perhaps deceptive, because most CPC members represent urban (and therefore small) districts. The Homosexualist (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its great we finally have a map, thank you. I don't mean to be rude, but there is one error on the map that I noticed(barring other errors of course that others may notice). In Minnesota, the larger district highlighted is in Republican hands and is, therefore, not a member of the CPC.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mistook MS-2 for MN-2. It is fixed now. —the Homosexualist (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; great job by the way. Also, interesting picture on your page lol.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this map correct? I noticed that Ron Kind (WI-03) is included as a member of the progressive caucus and this is not the case. Higgens99 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not. Could someone with more skill then me remove WI-03? Wolfpack40351 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The map on the page highlights all of Maine, when only the representative for ME-02 is a member. could someone please fix this? Reider22 23:37, 26 June 2020

HC
Hillary Clinton has been recently taken off the Former Members List of Progressives. It had been noted that she had to resign when made Secretary of state.She has been removed and, other former members and the reason for resignation have not. Only Hillary. She is a Former Member of the Caucus.. -- 19:21, 2 December 2010 User:Codeblue2
 * I do not think she was ever a member. Do you have any source that says she was?  TFD (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Explain the difference between the CPC and other caucuses, like the Blue Dogs
Could someone please add a section comparing ideologies of other groups in the Democratic Party such as the Blue Dog Democrats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of position as "left-wing"
On this wiki being firmly "left-wing" in position means that you're, at the very least, a Democratic socialist. This causus is, at the most, for social democracy, which we define on this very wiki as being center left. Unless someone posts a decent reason to keep the description I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.192.212 (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah there's a major problem with the "left wing" description, neither of the sources outright call them "left wing". Both simply refer to "the left" as a relative term to some other group:

Trying to make those sources mean "left wing" as opposed to center-left is a real stretch to say the least. This needs to be deleted. AlexanderLevian (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
 * |The one from The Hill simply states "House Democrats pushing hard from the left on budget as 'fiscal cliff' nears" which means it refers to the left of the center, or more likely left of the Republican Party. This is not a proper source.
 * |The other states "Representative Carl M. Sciortino, who has worked vigorously to position himself to the left of his six Democratic opponents" which doesn't indicate "left wing" as opposed to being to the left of the center. This is also not a proper source.
 * The sources describe them as 'left'. That doesn't mean center-left, it means left-wing. In the US spectrum, that's all that matters.  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No they don't:

They don't say at any point anything to the effect of the CPC being plain "left wing". Thank you AlexanderLevian (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
 * |The one from boston.com says "... the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the umbrella group for left-leaning Democratic members of Congress". It only refers Representative Carl M. Sciortino being to the left of six of Democratic candidates. One can also say the Main Street Republicans are to the left of the Republican Study Committee or that the Blue Dog Democrats are to the left of Tea Party movement. It's used as a term of relative position, not absolute position. Even if we add the expression leftwing to the statement about Representative Carl M. Sciortino, it would only mean that HE could be consider "left wing" (still stretching what the article says). But that would have zero bearing on the Progressive Caucus which the article EXPLICITLY refers to as a "left-leaning" organization.
 * |The one from The Hill only says that the "House Democrats pushing hard from the left on budget as 'fiscal cliff' nears". Once again, it’s not referring to the CPC or outright saying that the Progressive Caucus is the "left wing". The only time they are mentioned in the article, it says "But members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are warning that they'll fight to kill any budget package that would cut Medicare coverage, Social Security benefits and safety net programs for the poor — all elements of the Simpson-Bowles plan". It doesn't say anything about that organization's position on the political spectrum.
 * Tell you what. Put "Left (politics)" in your search bar here. See what page that goes to.  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * More left sources:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 *  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * None of those are reliable sources, two are well known for right-wing bias, and the other is unqualified.

Surely you noticed the problem with those sources, or do you want to start using MSNBC for sources about the Tea Party? You have to see the problem at this point. Now address the actual problems with the sources you listed. I have quoted the things twice and have pain-stakingly spelled out the problem with that. Please address those problems listed or the label "Left wing" will be removed. Tell you what. Look up center-left and see what political positions are usually associated with it (spoiler: Social liberalism, social democracy, and progressivism). AlexanderLevian (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal has a heavy conservative/right-wing bias. It is a clearly not an reliable source on this issue, (ever notice that Salon and MSNBC are not consider acceptable sources if the situation was the other way around).
 * I have no clue how one can say that The Christian Science Monitor is qualified to make such a claim.
 * The Telegraph is also of a conservative bias, not reliable source for this issue.
 * I thought you might say that, so what is your opinion on this Daily Beast article that explicitly describes them as 'left-wing' as well as this New Republic article that implies as such, or this New York Times article that places the caucus squarely in the political left?  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will gladly add Left wing with these sources, but I will not have total removal of sourced additions to the article. This does not count as good faith editing. I realize that taking left wing down instead of continuing to ask for proper sources wasn't in good faith either. My apologies. AlexanderLevian (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding; this is a perfectly reasonable compromise.  Toa   Nidhiki05  23:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How can a not-even socialist coalition be called full "left wing", check the other types of political groups called "left" on wikipedia, a non-red fully left wing is Chavez. That's what a non-center left looks like, can we have integrity and change it to center-left so the public can actually get an unbiased description of what those positions are considered worldwide? Using the proper standard, this is Center-left, and the DNC is CLEARLY Center, calling progressive left marginalizes the actual Left.

For example, Listed as Left, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Socialist_Party_of_Venezuela

Listed as Far left, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Left_Party_%28Austria%29

Both examples of how such political terms are used across wikipedia,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.249.225 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And one more thing: When the Daily Beast calls the Progressives "left wing," at most that is in relation to the rest of the Democrats. In most of the world, "socialist" is left wing, and "laissez-faire" is right-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytheman9 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be have left for some reason (excuse the pun :p). I agree with those saying that the CPC shouldn't be described as left-wing. Left-wing is democratic socialism, i.e. believing in the socialisation/collectivisation of the economy through gradualist, democratic means. This does not describe the CPC, which advocates progressive social liberalism, and moderate social democracy at best. The sources calling it left are talking in relation to the rest of the party. Also, American's seem unaware generally of the true meanings of the terms left-wing, democratic socialist etc. The British Labour Party is described on Wikipedia as 'centre-left', despite having democratic socialist leader who is far more left than Sanders, and even the right of the Labour party is left of most of the Democrats (the Democrats being in many ways closer the the UK Conservatives). I think centre-left for the CPC would be more apt. Gc12847 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For our purposes, "left-wing" means whatever the sources say it means. If the reliable sources say the CPC is left-wing, then we say the CPC is left-wing. If they don't, then we don't. If there's a discrepancy among reliable sources then we describe the discrepancy in a neutral fashion. It isn't our place to say "left-wing means X and the CPC is/isn't X." I believe this is well-covered in the above discussion and in our policy on verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the actually ideology of the CPC members, to call Hawkeem Jefferies "left-wing" is absurd. AOC indeed advocated for a smaller sub cacaus because the majority of the CPC is center-left at the most. Take Ted Lieu even according to Govtracks idelogy ratings more liberal Donald Beyer is a new-democrat even though Ted Lieu is more conservative by this chart. To be LEFT WING you need to be at the least a socalist, not even a social democrat.

1. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2018/house/ideology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cats4life666 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Section "Background" has some seriously propagandist garbage.
Is an small editorial disclaimer sufficient? Someone should get out their scissors.

Moreover, it wouldn't take someone much research to construct a factual section called "Controversy" which might be longer than the rest of the webpage. Here's a fair section that one of you contributors may add:

Ties To Socialism

The CPC has been alleged to have been organized by and/or heavily influenced by a Socialist faction or factions. While the evidence is not conclusive, the CPC denies the allegation. Nonetheless its founder is avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders.70.119.141.15 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 1. Did you seriously not Google and then ask me that? You can start with PolitiFact.
 * Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? The CPC has six founders, of whom only one self describes as a democratic socialist (although his ideology is closer to social democracy). So what additions would you like to see and what reliable sources can you cite for said additions? Alexander Levian (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2. Sanders is on undisputed record labeling himself as Socialist.

3. Founder Sanders was its first chairman. Thus you can change "founder" to "founder and original chairman" which actually strengthens the sentence. Thank you.

4. Put your hand on the Holy Bible and tell me that Background section in current form is not propagandistic.

You appear to be incapable of objectivity here which is the goal here. Someone more qualified should assess this.70.119.141.15 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. You're the one making the claims, therefore I assumed you have the sources, that's how Wikipedia works. 2. He has on multiple occasions specified that he is referring to democratic socialism and used Scandinavian social democracy as the example of what he is talking about (all of that was on Politifact ). 3. He's still not the sole founder, there were 5 other representatives that were founders as well. 4. No thank you. In what way is it propaganda? If you tell me and/or present the sources, I can help.
 * I asked you what additions and changes would you like to see and you didn't tell me anything. I will gladly help, but I need examples of the propaganda you want changed/removed and reliable sources. Thank you. Alexander Levian (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I commend DrFleischman and Wikipedia for allowing wiser, less biased heads to prevail. The excised "background" section was a deeply propandistic shame to the well earned respectability that Wikipedia [mostly] enjoys, and now that passage is gone. The replacement "Ideology" is far more encyclopedic.

Moreover, I know it took work, and time, to clean up the mess. Thank you, sincerely. However, I believe it may be rude, if not an outright copout, to strictly pin the burden of correction on someone who reported the malady (me). I'm grateful that instead someone (DrFleischman) responsibly took up the slack. When someone (such as I) makes a good faith expression of article error - not just a whine or rant, which I hope was not all that I conveyed - then it should be looked upon as notification that action is required (or not :) ). I understand saying, "well what exactly should we replace it with, and please provide sufficient justification and sourcing." However, as I was either unequipped or unmotivated to do that, the notification only served to express an opportunity for someone to repair the article.

And that's exactly what happened. So the system worked. Keep up the good work. And it's a lot of hard work and careful attention to detail. I appreciate that on behalf of the volunteers that make this all work, even if the great masses haven't the slightest sense of all that.24.27.72.99 (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by JDPEG
, can you please explain why you are bulk deleting without edit summaries, and can you and please explain why you are edit warring over this content without either of you including edit summaries? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies i totally didn't think to add summaries, I seen that this content was out of date so i just decided to work on it. --JDPEG (User talk:JDPEG|talk]]) 18:07, 24 January 2017
 * Why do you keep deleting the entire "Former members" section and then re-adding it? You've done it 4 times now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted exactly once in this article because "section blanking". That's not edit warring by any standard. Please explain what lead you to this claim, since I don't understand where the accusation came from. Granted, I should have left a summary along the lines of "Rv. section blanking", but that does not add up to an actionable (or even reproachable) offense to current policy, especially since the reason for reverting seemed clear enough (see ClueBotNG's edit summary). You response is eagerly awaited. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to spur a discussion about the content and referring to the fact that you reverted without including an edit summary. No offense intended. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case "can you and Kleuske please explain why you are edit warring over this content" is worded very strangely and does not reflect that intention. For some strange reason I do take offense when I'm accused of edit warring. Be a bit more careful, since WP:AGF is policy and edit summaries are not. Kleuske (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, AGF is actually a guideline, not a policy, and I didn't violate it by accusing you and JDPEG of collectively engaging in an edit war. After all you were reverting against each other without edit summaries. In fact, asking a fellow editor why they did something is the very essence of AGF. I accept your explanation, so perhaps we can move on? If not, I suggest we take this discussion to user talk, as it's not doing anything to improve Congressional Progressive Caucus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So why exactly were you beating up your wife edit warring in this article? Do you think that question is ludicrous, since you didn't? Well, those were my sentiments, too. Frankly, I don't care whether or not you "accept my explanation" for something I did not do. Since no apologies seem to be forthcoming, I see no point in continuing this "discussion". Kleuske (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, since you just repeated your accusations of edit-warring against me, we're now in WP:ASPERSIONS territory, aren't we? Still no policy, but ArbCom stuff, but still frowned upon, unless I'm very much mistaken. Kleuske (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a few articles describing progressives and caucus members as center-left
Wondering if that's cause enough to list one position as center-left (left-wing can be kept since there is a source along with it). Articles like these seem to describe several members of the caucus/the caucus itself or its ideology as center-left. Also seems like every-time the same left-"progressivism" is used outside the US, it is described as center-left as well.  HapHaxion  (talk / contribs) 21:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion articles aren’t reliable sources of fact.  Toa   Nidhiki05  22:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Info-box
Social democracy and left-wing should not be listed in the info-box.

The link to social democracy shows a Google book search for "Congressional Progressive Caucus social democracy," which indicates cherrypicking. The actual source says, "[The Rainbow Social Democrats] is a better description than simply calling it the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). It doesn't mean each leader active here is a in a social-democrat group. It means the core of the CPC platform is roughly similar to the left social democrat groupings in Europe and this is made even more evident with Bernie's self-description as a "democratic socialist...." It must be noted, however, that even though he's made the term "democratic socialist" more popular and acceptable he's not running on socialism." In fact, Sanders is one of very few members who self-describe as democratic socialist.

The source is by a writer from the The Rag Blog and is included in a symposium sponsored by the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a splinter group of American Communist Party. While I don't disparage Toa Nidhiki05 for his embrace of their views, this is obviously an opinion piece that fails reliability.

Social Democratic parties are not described in Wikipedia articles as left-wing but as center-left. The term left-wing is used for Left parties. The source which is an opinion piece likewise fails reliability. And it merely says that the CPC is the left-wing of the Democratic Caucus, which is not to say it is necessarily left-wing in an absolute sense. Note that only eight out of eighty members supported Sanders run for president.

TFD (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize my edit added back the other link. My revert was aimed at your removal of the long-standing and reliably sourced left-wing label. Sources call this group left or left-leaning, not center-left. It is the left-wing flank of America's party of the left. We don't go by your opinion on what the left is or your calculation of their presidential endorsements, we go by sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with what sources say, that it is on the left of the Democratic Party which is to the left of the Republicans. But that's not generally what's understood by the term left-wing.  We have to decide whether we want to inform readers or mislead them.  Do we want them to think they are reformist liberals or revolutionary socialists?  TFD (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. Should articles cover some "global" spectrum that nobody can agree on, or a state one? In the context of American politics it is decidedly clear who the sides are - Republicans broadly on the right, Democrats broadly on the left, with various ideological caucuses. If the Democrats are the party of the American left (generally the case in a stable two-party republic), the caucuses are a fair representation of the divide. So being the left of the left-leaning party is left wing, just as the Freedom Caucus guys are the right. Their page includes such labels, even "far right", even though few would seriously argue they belong alongside literal Nazis, white supremacists, or fascists - especially in a supposed global sense, given the Freedom Caucus is broadly neoliberal. And yet we label them as such, as the right-wing of America's right-leaning party.
 * We have no real consensus on including labels on the major party pages. On these ideological pages, it seems prudent however to label them according to their lean within their respective party, as they don't exist without the party and exist only to promote varying interpretations of the interests of either big-tent party. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Democratic socialism
So an editor has repeatedly added democratic socialism to the caucus' ideology section citing this article. The article states that the caucus has "over the years included a few friends of democratic socialism", that Bernie Sanders self-identifies as a democratic socialist, and that a former member (John Conyers) has worked with (but was not a member of) the Democratic Socialists of America. Since the article neither calls the organization democratic socialist, and only refers to one member as being a democratic socialist, it seems insufficient to be included. Also the article clearly states "the vast majority of CPC members are run-of-the-mill progressive Democrats". I've made my last revert until we can start a discussion about this issue (and maybe give the editor a chance to present a better source). Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus and avoid an edit war. Alexander Levian (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - I think the source is reliable enough to include democratic socialism as a faction of the CPC. Does it need to explicitly say they're democratic socialists? No. But regardless, there are some CPC individuals both at federal and state level that qualify for that. The paragraph before the mentioned paragraph states "The democratic socialist connections and tendencies that exist are no secret. The CPC was once led by US Senator Bernie Sanders, who has always identified as a socialist, and it is includes as a longtime member former House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, who (like former US Senator Ted Kennedy and the Reverend Jesse Jackson before him) has worked with groups such as Democratic Socialists of America to advance proposals for single-payer “Medicare for All” healthcare reforms." I think that paragraph is enough to consider democratic socialism a faction of CPC. Twwalter (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Does it need to explicitly say they're democratic socialists?" Actually yes. Anything else would be us inferring from the source what is not actually said. I fully support the article mentioning Conyers working with DSA and that one of the members identifies as a democratic socialist given that that's actually supported by the source. But how can we say one member (Sanders) being a democratic socialist and a former member (Conyers) occasionally working with the DSA counts as a faction? Alexander Levian (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there are no members of the CPC at the state level, since its membership is limited to members to the two houses of Congress. Working with someone is not the same as sharing their ideology. Basically one member is a democratic socialist. The other problem is that the term has different meanings. And it is not a faction of the group. A faction implies a group of members who work together in order to influence the organization. One person of course is not a faction and there is no evidence that Sanders worked with anyone to change the agenda of the caucus. TFD (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Quidster4040 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you the same question. How does one member (Sanders) being a democratic socialist and a former member (Conyers) occasionally working with the DSA counts as a faction? Alexander Levian (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support--With the election of AOC and Tlaib and 2020 primary wins from Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman I support the add.Gnostic1980 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Senate Members
I have issues with the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the Senate. It's OK the presence of Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, but there are other senators (who had been elected as Representantives before being senators) considered as former members, but as actual members in their personal articles (Sen. Brown (OH),Hirono (HI) and Baldwin (WI). Which is the correct version? --Iai1992 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sanders is the only senator listed as a member of the CPC on its website. TFD (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

CPC is not liberal.
There are quite a few radical left-leaning lawmakers who support AOC and Bernie Sanders, who do not belong to social liberalism or classical liberalism in the context of international politics. Liberalism is generally an ideology that spans the center-right and center-left. For example, do you think the document that evaluates the moderate centrist faction of the Republican Party, TG, as liberal, and the CPC, the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party, as liberal mean the same thing? In the U.S., "liberalism" often refers to the entire force opposed to "conservatism," and there is no evidence that CPC is liberal in the international political context.--Storm598 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In a similar case, there were cases where 'Economic liberal' was written on the Democratic Party of Korea document(#) or 'liberal' was written on the Justice Party (South Korea)(#) document, but there are many reasons why it was deleted soon after. Although it is not as acceptable as the United States, "liberal" sometimes use similar meanings as "progressive" in South Korea, but they are not "liberal" in the context of international politics.--Storm598 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ideology
Looking at the history, repeated edits have been made clarifying that the caucus is center-left to left-wing, and these edits have all been deleted. I was wondering why these edits have been deleted? The ideologies of social democracy and modern liberalism are considered center-left ideologies. This is consistent across the wikipedia pages of other parties, where parties with these ideologies listed are classified as center-left (i.e., labour party). Wondering what the procedure is around these deletions Jcaplil (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Largest Democratic caucus
An editor changed the description as largest Democratic caucus saying the New Democrats is now larger. Both articles claim the membership of each group is 94 voting members. So why is the New Democratic caucus larger? Did they win a coin toss in Iowa? TFD (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So the NDC claims 94 House members while the CPC claims 96 House members plus one senator. TFD (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently another voting member joined - I updated the article with that members name, possibly now making the CPC bigger. Possibly splitting hairs to worry about the difference of one member, so I updated to say one of the two biggest caucuses.

Ideology and political position
I suggest we leave these fields blank since the CPC has neither. It's basically a caucus that anyone can join and largely represents the left of the congressional caucus. On a global scale that's pretty centrist. The overwhelming majority for example backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. Clinton of course supports the death penalty and interventionism, while opposing universal health care and a livable minimum wage, was on the board of Walmart and received financial support from Wall St. TFD (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a “global political spectrum”. Having ideology on caucuses is longstanding and the CPC is unequivocally left-wing, as sources indicate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * See Robert M. MacIver in The Web of Government (1947):
 * "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes."
 * That was quoted by Seymour Martin Lipset who was president of both the American Political Science Association and the American Sociological Association.
 * Remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Furthermore, the usage is inconsistent with academic writing in the U.S. Your source is by a guy with a B.A. in English who worked in the Obama administration. Do you believe everything the Democrats tell you? Basically he is saying that anyone to his left is left-wing. But Republcans call people like him left-wing, because he is to the left of their party. there's this tendency in U.S. polemics to portray their adversaries in extreme terms (Trump is a fascist, Biden is a socialist), even though they might be separated by less than one degree on the political spectrum.
 * TFD (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Reproductive rights" or "abortion rights"
I don't think "abortion rights" is a more neutral term. Andre🚐 14:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's true. Agree with that. CrazyPredictor (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Far-left
Most CPC members have some sort of view aligning with far-left views so it should say in the political position Left-wing to far-left not Left-wing Produda (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have any source confirming that? If not, this seems more like a hunch/opinion: Something that wouldn't be appropriate in the article. CrazyPredictor (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , you've taken a lot of interest in classifying various groups into positions along the left-right political spectrum. The problem is that there is inconsistent use of the various terms. What does it mean to say that the CPC is far left? Do they put on masks at night and attack police? Or did they merely oppose lowering the top income tax rate for earnings over 1/2 million dollars per year from 39.6% to 37%, although not enough to reverse it once the Democrats won back Congress?
 * Each reader will have their own definiton of far left, centrist, right-wing etc. If you add any of these terms without explanation, it is confusing. TFD (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not refer to the Freedom Caucus as far-right because that would be a controversial label to apply, and the same is true for the CPC. Bill Williams 01:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If the Democratic Socialists of America are not "far left" (the description was rejected for that article), then the Congressional Progressive Caucus is not "far left"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

DSA is "far left", but CPC is not "far left". There are only four members of the DSA. The mainstream of the CPC is the left, not the far left. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No mainstream American political organization is "far left", including the DSA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However, the DSA is referred to as far left in many media. That may not be a somewhat clear concept, but I think we should apply a relatively political position in the American political environment. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

political position and ideology
CPC is not far-left, but never centre-left. Some books equate the CPC with Europe 'socialism', and many reliable sources refer to it as a "left-wing". Therefore, "centre-left" written on infobox is WP:SYNTH and should be removed. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The ideology and political position of the CPC's infobox should be defined in this way: Ideology: Social democarcy / Progressivism / Modern liberalism[A] / factions:Democratic socialism / Political position: Left-wing. A footnote referred to as [A] should contain this information: "The CPC is not referred to as "center-left" or "social-liberal" in the political context of any other country, but is referred to as (modern) "liberal" in the political context of the United States in the American media." Mureungdowon (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an article about American politics, not about world politics, so the context is abundantly clear -- and you have no way of knowing how it compares to every other country in the world. You apparently know South Korean and Japanese politics -- very similarly to an editor who was community site banned a while back -- but that's not the entire world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, "left-wing" may be relative in the context of American politics. However, the source I have just presented compares the CPC to socialism in Europe. "centre-left" belongs to the apparent WP:SYNTH. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the CPC is really oriented toward a European center-left, it should be presented with sources that support policies similar to those of at least the Social Democrats in Germany or the Socialist Party in France, even if the CPC is not directly referred to as "centre-left." But, as I see from the sources I have presented, the CPC rather identifies with the left-wing to far-left "United Left" in Europe, but nowhere has it been described as aiming for a European-style centre-left moderate social democracy. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will present a new agreement. Only the 'A' footnote is removed from the editing direction I suggested above. Instead, political positions should continue to be referred to as 'left-wing' as before. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like the previous editor I mentioned (who was not site banned, but who pledged not to edit Wikipedia for several years in lieu of being banned from all political articles) your knowledge and understanding of American politics is quite poor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to think CPC is not "left wing", so is there a source that CPC is not "left wing" in other countries politics? Mureungdowon (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ideology and Political position fields should be left blank. First, it has no ideology. While it is the most left-wing of the three caucuses of the party, there's no shared ideology or requirements for membership. Most members, like the rest of Congress (both parties), could be described as liberal, but tend more to social liberalism. Several self-identify as democratic socialists.
 * The Political position fields were removed from the articles about the two major parties because they are only meaningful in context. While the CPC is broadly the left of the party, its membership would not be considered left-wing in Europe.
 * Also, it does not have a democratic socialist faction, it has members who happen to self-identify as democratic socialists. In the same sense it doesn't have an African American caucus, although some members are also members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
 * TFD (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with the view that the CPC is not considered a left-wing in Europe. Rather, since the term socialism is taboo in the United States, it is highly likely to avoid the term even if it supports policies that conform to actual social democracy or democratic socialism. There is also the opposite, although Brazil is not an advanced country, it is a country with a much wider gap between the rich and the poor than the United States. But as you can see from the Portuguese Wikipedia, many center-right parties refer to themselves as social liberal parties. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because the CPC claims to be "liberal" does not make the CPC a European social liberal organization. At least in a context other than the US political context, sources should be presented stating that the CPC is described as "liberal", or directly supports "social liberalism". I have clearly presented a source stating that the CPC can also be socialist by European standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit, of course, that the arguments I make now may be somewhat exaggerated. I do not consider the CPC a socialist organization. However, when considering the 'political position', not only economic position but also social/cultural position should be considered. In the case of cultural policy, the CPC is much more progressive than most European centre-left social democrats. In particular, even though Italy is an advanced country, the center-left mainstream political forces are not free from conservative influence of the Christian community in LGBT or various social issues. (Of course, the center-left social democratic parties in Scandinavian Peninsula countries will be more culturally progressive than the CPC. But those countries are a very exceptional case.) Social liberals and social democrats in Eastern Europe in particular will be very social conservative by American standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your source says the CPC's "policy views are Keynesian and, in some cases, social democratic as well....It also includes Bernie Sanders, the sole socialist in Congress....The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the closest political group the US has that would parallel some of the "United Left" socialist and social democratic groups in European countries."
 * It does not equate the CPC with European socialism. The similarity is that many socialists in Europe still support Keynesianism and other social liberal policies.
 * Liberals, conservatives, socialists and Christian democrats all approach politics from a different set of beliefs. The fact that at times they may lead them to the same policies does not mean they have the same beliefs. The first advocates of the welfare state for example were conservatives, followed by some liberals. Socialists were last to embrace it.
 * Also, your source is self-published by non-experts, hence is not a reliable source. Instead of searching for "social democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus," and looking for a source that supports your views, identify the best sources about the CPC and see what they say.
 * TFD (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However, there is no source where the CPC is referred to as a centre-left. I looked up all the data from countries other than the United States. On the other hand, there are countless data from non-U.S. countries that refer to the CPC as a left-wing.
 * In other words, there is no evidence that all politicians in the Democratic Party have the same political beliefs. I don't think FDR is a socialist or a social democrat just because it has a lot of control over the market. He originally had liberal beliefs, as did Herbert Hoover. But does this caucus support a politically rigorous liberal philosophy? The FDP supported free trade, but they did not support free trade, European social democracy itself was much more moderate than it was 100 years ago, and there are politicians who advocate socialist political philosophy in the CPC, claiming to be self-proclaimed socialists. If philosophy is important, there is no reason to say that self-proclaimed socialists are not socialists. Liberal support for welfare, including social liberals, also had bourgeois intentions to prevent the socialist revolution. The CPC is not a bourgeois organization. In Europe, liberal parties are also called bourgeois parties. Unlike socialists and some Christian democrats, liberals have no class identity in the working class and the labor movement. However, the CPC is somewhat classy and closely related to trade unions.
 * There is no point in weighing ideological genealogy. In the early 19th century, even in France, republican radical-liberals were classified as more far left than non-radical uptopian socialists who did not support republicanism. In Poland, where social conservatism prevails, there are leff-liberals who are classified as more left than center-left social democrats. Some conservatives, including some Christian democrats, are politically left-leaning (in the European political context) rather than classical liberals with no conservative tendencies. Gérard Arau, a Socialist and former French ambassador to the United States, also referred to Bernie Sanders as a far-left like Melanchon. Sweden's centre-left social democrats do not form a political consensus with Bernie Sanders. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, we should remove the Political position field because the terms have different meanings depending on context, which an info-box does not. Depending on context, the CPC could be considered far left, left, center-left, centrist or right-wing. But in each case, the terms would have meanings that would be clear to readers.
 * Incidentally, the terms left-wing and right-wing as used today developed in the early 20th century, so the radical-liberals were not considered far left, although parties were often however named after their seating in the chamber when they first arrived. So by 1900, most parties that had left in their name were actually sitting on the right.
 * Also, Sanders' policies are fairly moderate. Basically he wants the U.S. to have the same health care, labor laws and affordable education that most if not all developed countries have. However, owing to the weakness of socialist parties in the U.S. and the weakness of liberal parties in Europe, there is cooperation between Social Democrats in Europe and Democrats in the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since other caucus-related articles show political positions, I cannot agree to the removal of political positions. And if the CPC is a center-left, it needs data that proves it, but that data does not exist, and in media outside the United States, it is described as a left-wing. I don't agree with you, but as a compromise, I suggest you label your political position like this:
 * A: "Left-wing (disputed)"
 * B: "Left-wing (in American stance)"
 * C: "Centre-left to left-wing"
 * Mureungdowon (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. That fact that other articles list political positions doesn't mean that this article must as well.  In fact, I agree with TFD: the CPC is not an ideology-driven group of people - that is, the ideologies listed are descriptive and not prescriptive -- and it would be best that no political position is listed at all.  Since at this moment we have a rough consensus, I'll make that change, which can be altered if more editors enter the discussion.  Please do not revert to your preferred version unless and until you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we not edit without permission when there is no agreement yet? Mureungdowon (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Above all, I don't think it's appropriate to remove the political position of the Congregational Progressive Caucus article while describing the political position in all Republican Caucus, Blue Dog Coalition, and New Democracy infobox. If there is an agreement that the political position of all Republican and Democratic articles of Caucus should not be described in infobox, I will agree to the removal of the political position of the articles of Congregational Progressive Caucus. (In the Freedom Caucus article, the political position is not small in the infobox, but in the article itself, the phrase "far-right" should be maintained.) Mureungdowon (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When there is a dispute, edits should not be made until there is a consensus on what to do. Right now, the rough consensus is 2 editors saying to remove political position from the infobox, and 1 (you) saying otherwise.  As more editors enter the discussion (if they do), that consensus can change, and adjustments to the article can be made in accordance with the new consensus.  But it's also possible that no other editors will join, and this will remain the consensus. Right now, the article represents the existing consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It may well be appropriate to list the political positions of those other groups; I don't know, I haven't looked into it - but the existence of "political position" on those articles does not mean that this article must have it. You clearly haven;t read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as I suggested above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't make a deal here to remove ideology fields from the other "factions," it has to be done on the relevant talk pages. The CPC, unlike political parties outside the U.S., does not have an ideological statement and that might be true for some of the other party factions. But this is not the place to discuss them. I would note also that the info-box is wrong to describe the caucus as a faction of the Democratic Party. The founder, Bernie Sanders, was an independent and Republicans are free to join, it's just that there have not been any progressive Republicans since Reagan and Gingrich transformed the party. Progressivism after all originated as a faction of the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In the left-right spectrum of the 20th century, the left is socialist, the right is conservative, and the centrist(centre-left ~ centre-right) is liberal. However, this traditional left–right spectrum is no longer valid in the 21st century. In fact, in the English Wikipedia, some 21th century liberal parties are classified as right-wing or left-wing. There used to be progressives in the GOP, some of whom were considered left-wing. Theodore Roosevelt is a case in point. Even today, some not-socialist progressive or liberal parties are often regarded as 'left-wing'. The Liberal Initiative or the Progress Party (Norway) is considered a 'right-wing'. This may be an exceptional case, but it is certainly possible if such a liberal party is economically ultra-liberal than a mainstream center-right party, or culturally progressive than a mainstream center-left. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "global political spectrum" is also important in terms of political position. But the political reality of the country should not be ignored. As TFD users say, Congregational Progressive Caucus may not be the left-wing in some other countries. However, in the context of American politics, it is a clear left-wing, and no source has been found yet that the CPC is a center-left. I would have accepted it if the CPC had a source mentioned as "centre-left" like the Justice Party in South Korea. But wouldn't there be a reason for it if the media, not even the US, never mentioned the Caucus as a center-left?
 * There were countless data referring to the CPC as a left-wing in the media outside the United States, but only zero data referred to it as a center-left. If, like the Justice Party in South Korea, the CPC is more of a "centre" than a social democratic party in Europe, or at least there is no expert data identifying it with a center-left party in Europe, the group's political position should remain 'left-wing'. Jacobin refers to Bernie Sanders as a "class straggle social democracy." South Korea's Justice Party does not support class straggle, but its former leader, Sim Sang-jung, said the Justice Party is more pro-business (친기업) than anyone else, only opposing human rights violations against workers. American politics has nothing to do with South Korean politics. But it also has nothing to do with European politics. Europe's 'mainstream' centre-left don't usually support class straggle. Bernie Sanders' health insurance policy is moderate, but not all policies are moderate. The socialist movement in the United States is usually unrelated to Marxism, but Europe's center-left, based on Marxist traditions, do not support 'class straggle'. Social democrats who support class straggle are usually called left-wing and democratic socialists. A typical European centre-left politician, Keir Starmer or Olaf Scholz, would not feel politically aligned with the left-wing democratic socialists in the United States. Just as the Swedish social democrats mentioned above recognized Sanders radically. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you say that the terms mean something different today and they mean different things in different countries, then it's too complex to put into the info-box. TFD (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just think "left-wing" must be included in the infobox. The CPC is clearly a left wing organization. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the Swedish Social Democrats and the Gérard Araud (French Socialist Party member) refer to Bernie Sanders as the far left by social democrats, there is no reason to regard the CPC as not a left-wing by international standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When they said that, Sanders was the sole socialist member of the CPC. It's like Elizabeth Warren calling herself an Indian because one percent of her ancestry was Native American. TFD (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Native American is a concept related to race, I don't think it's an appropriate analogy in issues related to ideology and political position. If they were born in Europe, they would have supported social democracy, and in reality, they avoid the term because Americans who support it have a cultural reluctance to call themselves socialists.
 * Bernie Sanders may be a European social democrat, but he is a classical social democrat, and at least not a center-left social democrats in the European political stance. Because even the center-left in Europe doesn't accept it. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Whether or not we accept the comments on Sanders, he is only one member of the CPC, was always rated as their most left-wing member, and the overwhelming majority of CPC supported other candidates when he ran for president. IOW, he is not representative of the group. TFD (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In 21st century politics, classical left-right spectrum are meaningless. You can be a "left-wing" even if you're not a socialist. Poland's Your Movement and Japan's left-wing populism are rooted in liberalism, but they are classified as "left-wing". Also, some of Polish/Japanese social democrats are considered "centre-left" rather than "left-wing". The CPC is liberal, but at the same time it is left-wing. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the reason for this is that in these countries there is still the liberalism-conservatism fight, thats why some leftist parties split from liberal parties like Libre in Honduras, MRL in Colombia or Reiwa in Japan or some just copied the american definition like Possibile.
 * This doesn't make them "liberal" is the proper sence though, i would rather call them "progressive". I think overall Centre-left to left-wing would be the best. Braganza (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the terms are meaningless, why do you want to put them in the info-box? TFD (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is, simply, that ideological genealogy doesn't matter much. At least this is how the political position of the infobox should be written:
 * Plan 1: Left-wingThe Congressional Progressive Caucus is described as a "left-wing" by numerous sources:

(Footnote A: The CPC is considered to be "left-wing" in the American political standards.)
 * Plan 2: Centre-left to left-wing (Footnote A: The CPC is considered to be "left-wing" in the American political standards.)
 * --Mureungdowon (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the mainstream Democrats, like Joe Biden, are social democrats. However, some members of the CPC do not refer to themselves as socialists, but rather support policies that are much closer to European left-wing social democracy than social liberalism or center-left social democracy. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While ideology can be plotted along a left-right axis, policies cannot. TFD (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Center-left social democrats in other regions, such as Europe and Japan, were interested in welfare states and opposed the class struggle. But many of the CPC's politicians, not Bernie Sanders, are based on the burgeoning youth progressivism/democratic socialism and labor movement in the United States, and their rhetoric is very class struggle. And in the first place, politics in other countries and American politics have nothing to do with it. In American politics, the CPC is 'left-wing'. CPC's policies are also absolutely right on the 'left-wing', at least by U.S. political standards, compared to other Caucus policies. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Since you are not willing to respond to my questions and merely repeat your earlier points, this conversation is pointless. You haven't persuaded anyone, so it's time to quit. TFD (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please red WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:BLUDGEON. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also wait until others participate in the talk. For now, I am in the position that CPC should be applied to political positions, because it is referred to as the left wing by many reliable sources. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Caucus membership
According to the CPC website there are 101 members... We need to figure out why we have more members listed in the article. CarribeanUnicorn (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It changes every two years after congressional elections, of course...  The new House (118th United States Congress) was sworn in just a week and a half ago... AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup exactly. As long as there are additional sources other than the official page that back up the membership, we should reflect it on here. CrazyPredictor (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Table Misformatting
The table listing members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is misformatted such that when sorted by CPVI it lists Representative Matt Cartwright as Non-Voting rather than the Delegate from Washington, D.C., Eleanor Norton Holmes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.224.241 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)