Observations About the Right-Wing, Left-Wing Dichotomy

Author: Tim Platnich

Date: October 10, 2025

It strikes me that 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' are weaponized labels used to smear someone that holds values different from one's own values. This, perhaps, explains how poorly these terms are defined. Tarring people with vague and undefined labels is easy, requires no thought or understanding and delivers maximum impact in today's mindless society. It feeds nicely into headlines and click-bait.

The dichotomy, if not created by mainstream media, is certainly well nourished by it. To really get a rise, they call ideas or people 'the far right'. Far right is equated to Hitler, or worse, Trump. Yet, there seems to be no 'far left'. If there was, this might be (properly) equated with Mao, Stalin, Castro and yes, I suggest, Hitler - all extreme practitioners of central planning.

What is to be made of these terms substantively, weaponization aside? Let's start with how the media seems to categorize people and ideas into the different camps.

Starting with left-wing, this typically is equated with self-styled progressive thinkers. Progressive thinkers are portrayed as those that support: DEI; anything LGBTQIA+; judicial activism including the 'living tree' approach to constitutional interpretation; anti-colonialism; violent demonstrations if the cause is a progressive one; cultural relativism; net-zero; big government and central planning as opposed to free markets; social justice; equity over equal rights; group rights over individual rights; feelings as the path to truth rather than science (properly defined) and rational thought; absolute liberty in one area only - abortion; and borderless states i.e. unrestricted immigration. I am sorry if I missed anything.

Largely, right-wing thinkers are portrayed as those that disagree with any or all of the foregoing. Additionally, they are associated with gun rights, Christian fundamentalism; prudishness; conservative values like the importance of the traditional family; nationalism; and racism.

Where do moderate people land on these issues, labels and rhetoric aside? I concede that I have not conducted a survey so I have no data to back up my theory at this point.

My theory is that most people outside of activists and ideologues support the following: all individuals should be treated with dignity, respect and toleration; live and let live; there are no special rights accorded to any group regardless of reasons presented; group punishment is wrong; one's sexual preferences and proclivities are a private matter and good taste requires proper decorum and modesty in public; everyone is entitled to their own feelings, however where publicly expressed, others are free to accept, reject or refute those feelings; feelings may be sincerely and strongly held but untrue nevertheless having regard to objective reality - eg. one may believe the moon is made of cheese but they would be wrong; and individuals, if judged at all, should be judged on their character and conduct not their immutable physical attributes - to name a few. These people were once known as centrists, moderates and, I dare say, liberals. Where have they gone? I expect they still exist but are now just part of the silent majority. Why are they silent? Two reasons. One, they just live their lives without fanfare. Two, they are not newsworthy. No one in the mainstream or social media wants to report on the ordinary person who just works, parents, pays taxes, maybe goes to church, and enjoys a good barbecue with friends, family and neighbours. Boring! Three, they are afraid that in speaking out, they will be branded as haters.

Some reject this dichotomy of right and left. According to them, there are only normal people, which includes themselves, and the far-right. How convenient. I am normal; anyone who disagrees with me is extreme. I expect this approach is more tactical than heart-felt. It is easier to criticize someone you deem to be extreme. If you accept that you may be extreme, well now, you open yourself up to criticism. It is more comforting to be seen as part of the 'normal' herd.

Oddly, in this dichotomy, some traditional concepts have become confused, possibly even hi-jacked. Libertarians are now considered right-wing when back in the time of John Stuart Mill, they were considered 'liberal'. Now, liberal means progressive which in turn means in favour of big government, the opposite of what the liberals of the Enlightenment stood for.