I believe there's as much utility in redefining the word progressive as there is in redefining the term Nazi (i.e. none). There's very little difference between historic progressive policies and modern progressive policies, so there's little need to change the definition of the term.

They still advocate technocracy, military intervention, social liberalism (i.e. the world is comprised of tribes) as opposed to classical liberalism (the world is comprised of individuals), the social sciences/liberal arts, corporatism rather than capitalism and policies with racist origins like the minimum wage and abortion. They still oppose free speech and religion. They still advocate gun control and isolating a single ethnic group in society as "the problem".

In fact, National Socialism advocated all of this as well. Perhaps the primary difference between the two is that in its quest to advance globalism it advocated extreme ethnic nationalism, while progressivism has found a lot more success in advocating extreme anti-nationalism.

When "progressives" (who aren't left or right) re-emerged in the UK under Blair in 1997 he called it "The Third Way". He promised a third way that wasn't capitalism or communism. Fascism promised exactly the same thing and called it "The Third Position".

Every now and again a progressive will emerge from the background and begin calling to extinguish an entire ethnic group. More recently it was New York Times journalist Sarah Jeong, but targeting and negatively stereotyping an ethnic group is a common tactic for many in the progressive press.