When I encounter Deists or when new people join the Classical Deism server, I make it a point to ask them about what type of Deist they are. I consider this a good practice because I've come to learn that no two Deists are ever really identical. No surprise there as that is what a lack of dogma would yield. The most common responses I receive are Classical Deist, Modern Deist, Neo-Deist, Spiritual Deist (and so on...). I happen to find agreement with some variants more than others due to a shared method and philosophical tradition, but they are all meaningful distinctions in their own right.
However, there's one type of distinction I've come to abhor. A distinction that doesn't even have much to do with philosophy itself. Rather, they are political or quasi-political labels attached in front of Deism to signal a value preference in addition to identification with Deism. At first glance, this may simply seem slightly annoying, but is the symptom of intellectual error. In fact, it is a type of intellectual error that many have to come to accept and even revere at times.
If you aren't familiar with the form of the distinction I talk about, you can recognize it when someone says "Progressive Deist"/"Liberal Deist"/"Conservative Deist" or so on. The only place this distinction has is when one explicitly ponders the political affiliations of Deists or of specific Deists. In any other context, I have come to recognize using such labels as grave errors. It is a sign of a cultural presupposition that will conflict with the intellectual honesty associated with Deists.
It is generally a good idea to minimize the number of assumptions one can and only keep them when absolutely necessary before proceeding with inquiry. People with cultural or political presuppositions will not easily let them go, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. This reduces truth-seeking behavior by a considerable amount. I doubt anyone seriously considers the thesis that "Deist" is what would be the most important word in such a label. If forced to choose, I would estimate that most users of political/cultural adjectives + Deism would part with Deism and find some other system that they could mold into being compatible with their beliefs.
I suspect the reason many of these types pick Deism is because they realize that looser-term Deism is extremely moldable. At best, one needs simply not to be an Atheist. I wouldn't write not being a Theist in the requirements because there are many de facto Theists amongst the Deist community that try to argue for the usual religious talking points. One can easily slap any adjective in front of Deism and call themselves that. However, there are labels that are certainly more legitimate than other labels and the ones I talk about in this article are some of the least legitimate.
A possible counterargument I will tackle here is about one's Deism being "informed" by culture or politics. This should NEVER happen. Both culture and politics are downstream of philosophy and so should flow from philosophy instead of flowing into it. To see why, consider having your moral system impacted by politics. What would it mean to call an opposing political stance immoral? It would be meaningless since one can simply adjust their moral judgment by changing their politics and so anyone in an out-group can be immoral. This is in stark contrast to having your moral system influencing your politics. It is unavoidable to be pressed for philosophical justification for any political or cultural opinion and so those who rely on the latter for the former will engage in circular reasoning. It truly is the Least Valuable Distinction.