Your view here kind of flips the historical meaning of the words. In France where the terms arose, leftists wanted to change the country towards making it less royalist and more democratic, and came to be called Republicans. Rightists wanted yto preserve the power of the monarchy and throne, and came to be called Conservatives.

Your definitions also seem really specific to the cultural politics of the USA in our current historical moment.

I’m not sure Heinlen’s view helps us deal with this very much - [en.m.wikipedia.org]

I love this breakdown. A friend of mine wanted to write a book on how we might ditch all such descriptions and start over. He became discouraged when I pointed out that I order to communicate with people in a language people could identify with, he would have to start from a premise they already understand. I think he gave up too easily. The biggest problem I see on a consistent basis is people intentionally inter changing classical terminology with modern in order to promote a false, accusatory, or at best ignorant narrative. Maybe I can get still encourage him.

"And the parting on the left is now the parting on the right."

It appears to many who previously considered themselves (historically) "on the left," (Classical Liberal) find themselves more and more in agreement with those they considered, "on the right," in regards to property rights, freedom of speech, and self determination. In this context, my view isn't specific to the current USA political/economic historical moment. It's "the left" who is currently using deplatforming as a tactic, both in the U.S. and Europe, to silence people they disagree with. Interestingly, Also, it didn't take long for those French leftists to start sending people they disagreed with, or thought guilty of political heresy, to the guillotine.
What I'm attempting to point out, is using maps, such as the Inglehart-Wetzel you linked, overcomplicate the simple concept, that some people want to be left alone, and allowed to pursue their lives without an overbearing grand master, versus those that want to be the grand master.

Wiki is the source I'm questioning...the logic seems a bit thin.

@Davisz1 it is a bit thin. However, it illustrates a way of disambiguating leftism (the belief that people require some goods of common provision, collective action through the state is desirable, that capitalism has inherent flaws, that histories of oppression matter for establishing a just social order) from authoritarianism (that people should be forced to believe a creed and obey orders military-style).

Authoritarian leftism violates property rights and directs broad areas of economic life by dictate.

Fascism combines totalitarian rule and suppression of dissent with a mixed economy (like the ones most countries have right now), fusion of state and corporate power, and with the exaltation of nation and patriotism (sometimes race) over person. It’s about loyalty, psychologically merging with the nation, excluding the out-group, and economic autarky.

At the authoritarian peak of both left and right sides of the spectrum, exclusion of the outgroup can be forceful - taking their stuff and pushing them out of the territory, or killing them.

To be glib for a moment, I’ll share a notion without thinking it through too much...

Emotionally, those on the left are suspicious of how the powerful/rich may prey on the weak/poor.

Those on the right are suspicious of how outside groups may attack the in-group/nation.

Clearly both kinds of dangers exist.

Within the nation, power does corrupt, and there are also out-groups who want to harm or annihilate our in-group.

If we have a society where some people overreact a bit to power inequality, and some people overreact a bit to us/them threats, but compromises are found through principled debate, then that society can oscillate within a left-right policy zone that is livable, on balance.

@Mehcanic I kind of felt that much of the fascism rhetoric pointed at not just Trump, but at any right wing pundit, was misplaced until I googled far right. If Google says it it must be true, right? I also was described as being far right, I guess by default, leaning toward fascism...lucky for me, I don't take blanket accusations at face value, and googled it. Seeing wiki tie fascism and racism to far right politics on such a source caused me some concern. I am really curious as to what they are teaching in public schools and University. When I recognize that many on the left with whom I try to have this conversation with choose not to even discuss the discrepancy, I start to smell a hint of dishonesty. I think the founders tried to address the possibility of a central government being too weak to govern in the federalist papers. I wonder if its reading has been banned in school yet. In my eyes far right in American political terms would be most accurately described as the Confederation prior to the Constitutional Convention. Hardly a fascist regime...

@Davisz1 I don’t think that the reading of the Federalist Papers or ANY Early US History is “banned” ... it simply isn’t taught ... isn’t mentioned ... it has been discarded along with “Civics and Government” ...
Students simply grow up ignorant of the entire topic.

@Davisz1 Both Stalinism-like communism and Fascism arose in the mid 20th century, possibly not coincidentally when industrial scale killing became possible. So the extremes of modern political partisanship got pushed farther out from anything you’re referencing.

Adherents of these extreme ideologies are active today in the USA.

I can appreciate the classic al term of liberal in terms of thinking passed monarchy. In todays terms, conserving the liberal movement of a Democratic Republic, or away from King George, as in todays conservative right wing, focuses on the rights of the individual and the subjugation of the government to him or her. The opposite would have to be true to lend itself to fascist thinking. Ie everything that opposes the governing body becomes hate speech and therefore must be suppressed.

I think the problem is using the historical terminology in reference to political leanings in an interchangeable fashion. It has become trendy, however dishonest.

Complete libertarianism on the right (no state, no grassroots interest in equality/glorification of the powerful), and complete anarchism on the left (no state, strong grassroots interest in equality/suspicion of the powerful) both operate as thought experiments, and some people actually endorse these positions. There are lots of positions near these extremes, but not all the way over to them, that people take more seriously.

Thanks, nice to be here!