Left? Right? Or Simply Outdated?

First of all, what do we mean when we say the Left-Right Spectrum? The spectrum basically refers to categories, and in this context, it means categorizing political ideologies. The left political ideology is often associated with ideas like equality and social justice. People who identify with the left wing usually support welfare programs, progressive taxation (which means rich people have to pay more taxes), and providing equal opportunities. Meanwhile, the right wing is linked to individual freedom, a free-market economy, and limited government intervention. This means that they support the idea that the market should not be interfered with by the government. They often believe that a strong economy comes from competition and private businesses, not from too much government control. This article will criticize the categorization of political views.

In today’s world where we have to advocate for gender rights, climate activism or AI, using political spectrums such as the left-right wing spectrum is outdated. Using this spectrum polarizes and divides our communities. During the French Revolution, political ideology was divided into two main categories: left-wing and right-wing. Citizens who supported the king and monarchy sat on the right of the French Parliament, while those who supported reform sat on the left. Ever since, left-winged political ideology has been associated with the side that encourages democracy and freedom and in contrast the right-winged ideology has been associated with a traditional political spectrum. These divisions of political ideologies were useful in the Parliament during the French Revolution however, its relevance to modern society and modern politics has diminished over time. But in modern politics, the ideas we have to discuss in a political platform are far more than what these categories of political ideologies offer. Major democracies such as Germany and Austria have already moved away from the traditional spectrum because it does not provide solutions for modern world problems and lack of freedom in political debates. We must understand the limitations of the traditional spectrum that result in the impairment of political debates. This issue is a matter of democracy, cohesion and creation of resolutions; and we cannot categorize people’s political opinions into simply left and right. Can these two categories truly represent the diversity of millions of people? Or is it time that we recognized that these spectrums are outdated and we should think for a multidimensional political model?  This essay will prove that moving beyond the traditional left-right spectrum is essential for strengthening social unity, addressing, ensuring political stability and bringing political debates to the 21st century.

Modern politics tackle issues that have complex perspectives and cannot be fully explained or be advocated in the traditional right-left spectrum. 

The left-right political ideologies were first introduced when the conflicts discussed in a political platform were about economic conflicts such as workers vs. capitalists. Yet, we use these spectrums to explain political debates in gender rights or AI. The following questions arise in this meaning: “Can’t a person who supports the right wing also care about environmental protection?” or “Can’t a person who identifies with the left spectrum also believe in religious and traditional values in activism?” Promoting the use of this spectrum leaves these questions unanswered. 

For a better understanding of why oversimplification is untenable we can turn to Kimberlé Crenshaw, a respected law professor, who introduced the concept of Intersectionality, arguing that we cannot divide people’s ideologies into restrictive categories as they could overlap with other ideologies and therefore it would be a vague description of identities (Columbia Law School, 2017). She demonstrates that an individual’s identity cannot be measured by broad definitions. For instance, she argues that the discrimination that the African-American women endure cannot be only identified as racism, she highlights that  their life experiences can identify as  an intersection of both racism and sexism. Using the same logic on categorizing people with their ideologies, using broad and invalid categories to identify political beliefs would completely disregard the people identifying with parts of both sides of the traditional spectrum. Therefore we cannot simplify people’s complex beliefs and opinions into two rigid categories.

For instance, in the Fridays for Future climate activism movement that started in 2018, people from all around the world got together to fight for our world regardless of their different political backgrounds. The Fridays for Future movement proves it is possible to be political and not left or right. The traditional spectrum tends to overlook or simplify issues like climate change in order to squeeze them into antiquated left-right categories. This shows that modern activism needs a more flexible model of politics, one able to handle complex issues rather than simplifying them into a neat left-right division and fighting for justice cannot be restricted into invalid political spectrums. Such movements illustrate that in order to address the complex problems of the modern world, we must move away from this restrictive spectrum; otherwise, we risk trapping our society in stereotypes and generalizations that are no longer valid.

One of the other numerous reasons why left-right spectrum is an improper way to define political ideologies is that politics that limit people to left vs. right causes division and polarization rather than cooperation. While people should see political platforms as a way to resolve conflict, this spectrum shifts people to fueled disagreements and seeing people with other ideologies as the enemies. This creates hostility and “us vs. them”  mentality rather than cooperation and peace. Such results were observed when the traditional left-right spectrum reached a perilous extent, after the presidential  election in 2020, people supporting the presidential candidate Donald Trump, who are aligned with the right wing, attacked the Capitol the day of the approval of the election results, killing 5 people and injuring hundreds (Borjas and VerBruggen, 2024). This was referred to as one of the biggest conflicts in the U.S. that happened in the last few years. This event is widely referred to as the “Red vs. Blue” movement shifted from disagreeing political views to violence, where citizens stopped believing and advocating for the institution or democratic election processes. Beyond this, it also escalated political conflict resolution into aggression as well as  eroding the democratic foundations of the United States. Moreover it made aggression normalized in a political forum. It created a political culture that normalized extreme actions in the name of patriotism, destabilizing the society. This clearly demonstrates the ways how outdated spectrums not only foster division but promote acts violence that weakens the foundations of democracy. How can states maintain a stable democracy when there are people marching down the streets and killing people with opposing beliefs? The traditional political spectrum does nothing more than create aggression and polarization in the society. 

Furthermore, the traditional left-right spectrum fails to provide proper advocacy and representation to our diverse societies. In the past, political debates were limited to labour rights, International Relations and economic distribution, however in today’s world we face challenges that modern society can only answer with pragmatic solutions without being limited by the left-right spectrum. Diverse societies and political parties can and should have opposing opinions, but they cannot be classified into being left or right because of the fact that we argue complex opinions in the modern world and this spectrum lacks representation on such problems. In order to represent all citizens in a political standpoint, we must move from this outdated spectrum and reach for more inclusive and multidimensional political models. For example the Green Party in Germany mainly highlights green initiatives and sustainability. Their political standpoint is economically left, culturally liberal and pragmatic in some topics. This does not fit into the traditional spectrums.  Additionally the Podemos party in Spain who supports social justice and cultural reforms do not fit into the old spectrum as it provides both pragmatic and left ideology standpoints. These examples demonstrate that political parties can pose opinions out of the left-right spectrum and relying on the traditional spectrum leave many citizens unrepresented. 

In order to tackle this issue of identifying people with political beliefs, there have been academics that introduced multidimensional tests for identifying individuals' political beliefs such as the Political Compass and the Nolan Chart. These tests consist of numerous different questions that measure people’s political beliefs on multiple problems such as economic policies, individual freedom or cultural and religious values that determine their political ideologies. These tests allow people to educate themselves on their own beliefs and ideologies regarding politics as well as removing the barriers between the two traditional categories. Limitations on political beliefs mean silencing our society, conforming complex beliefs into two. If we continue to support these outdated ideologies, we would allow silenced political views to structure democracy.

Furthermore it is often argued by the opposing views that the diversification of political views as the public diverge from the traditional left-right systems the votes may dilute in between candidates influencing the outcomes of the elections. However, this should in fact be the basis of democracy, people being able to support whomever they wish. While opposing logic supports the public should be voting for the benefit of the political parties interest  instead of reflecting their own political identity to their votes. Which damages the core values of what is tried to be established with modern democracy.

In conclusion the traditional spectrum is not only outdated but also misleading. This system might have been effective to divide political choices in history, but now it is a barrier in front of activism, democracy and social cohesion. This matter is not a minor issue, it should be taken seriously because now our society and our democratic systems are at stake. It oversimplifies modern issues, leaves a vast amount of people underrepresented and results in cleavages among citizens. Political ideologies are far more complex to fit in two categories. If the true meaning of democracy in a state is representing citizens in the right way, then we need to lift the gap between these two outdated categories. After all, the question in the matter results in this question: Can we fulfill the foundations of democracy in a state when we force millions of diverse opinions to fit an old spectrum? This is why we need to abolish these categories in order to bring political debates to the 21th century. 

Selin Kısacıkoğlu

References and Further Readings:

Freire, A. (2015) ‘Left–right ideology as a dimension of identification and of competition*’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 20(1), pp. 43–68. doi: 10.1080/13569317.2015.991493. 

Columbia Law School (2017). Kimberlé Crenshaw on intersectionality, more than two decades later. [online] Columbia Law School. Available at: https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later.

Borjas, G. and VerBruggen, R. (2024). The ‘Red’ vs. ‘Blue’ Crime Debate and the Limits of Empirical Social Science. [online] Manhattan Institute. Available at: https://manhattan.institute/article/red-vs-blue-crime-debate-and-the-limits-of-empirical-social-science.

Conradt, D. (2025). Green Party of Germany | political party, Germany. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Green-Party-of-Germany.