Except we can, by and large know what is left and what is right by a person's position on most issues.
Can we? Can we even agree on some objective terminology? Left and right are metaphors for opposing views, but they could also imply opposing powers such as federal vs state. As a single binary framework, the left/right dichotomy is limited in its analytics. For example, when framed as liberal/conservative in the classic sense of on one hand being open to different opinions or on the other hand supporting tradition, those words imply --> open to change/against change. <-- In this simple framing most issues actually overlap around an abstract center, but it's so generalized in sentiment that it doesn't even describe the actual policies that should change or shouldn't change nor why, it simply denotes a history of precedents on the right, and a response to the current status quo on the left.
Moreover, fundamental differences in policy making are going to be over the role of government, but since people can use different words to express the same sentiments, and differing sentiments can be expressed using the same words, the chances of communication breakdown are imminent. An objective view can be obscured through subjective language. Hence, propaganda is designed to manipulate minds using subjective terminology and work the ends against the middle. That is not in the interests of society as a whole, so whoever is lying to manipulate the people by obscuring the issues, is intent on sowing chaos.
This is why I strongly recommend noting those who slander others, because it's a simple agreement that slander is an enemy of the people.
We can also mostly determine what is far right. For example, white supremacy would be far right. Facism, far right. Christian Nationalism could be considered far right depending on the definition for example a Theocracy. Nazis would be considered far right.
It may seem as if we can say what constitutes the right. If we call the left open for change then the right simply implies the status quo. But all of the far right depicted above is not actually representative of the status quo in the history of our republic. I can anticipate that someone will bring up slavery and white supremacy as part of our history, but the reality is that any policies that would try and make white skinned people better people is more representative of totalitarianism and not representative of liberty and justice for all.
The central issue is going to first be the role government should play. The question of how to govern best is where ideologies become the more apparent. Even if we need to read between the lines, I think it's fair to say that the dynamics of power are going to inevitably lead to follow the money.
I would even suggest that the removal of all taxes and all safety nets would be considered far right. Thats what we would consider far right.
Note that earlier you said white supremacy, fascism, christian nationalism, <--These all were depicted as far right yet none of them have anything to do with removal of taxes and all safety nets. But I think we can agree that our history shows that there was a time when there were no federal income taxes and subsequently, no safety nets funded by government.
Conservatives in general reject those ideologies flat out, even though they are typically on the right and don't support them.
Exactly, conservatism is being grossly mischaracterized so long as it's being grouped with ideologies that are based upon negative prejudices which real conservatives would have nothing to do with. To have a valid left/right dichotomy they have to both be valid substantive opposing views. The simplest comprehension of the liberal/conservative dichotomy would show that every person is sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative.
So what is far left as defined by the left and what far left positions are not typically supported by the left in general?
I think the Democracy/autocracy dichotomy is the most consistent in its objectivity because it doesn't rely on personal interpretation. It shows the centralizing and decentralizing of power in a binary frame. We can actually see ideologies and policies that reflect whether power is being centralized or decentralized. And if we follow the money, we can see if policies are empowering the rich to the detriment of the vast majority, or whether they are empowering the people as a whole.
Pure communism would be on the far left in the Democracy/autocracy dichotomy since theoretically power would be decentralized to the most possible extreme, which can never be implemented realistically. This is why we have a republic.
