much of the issue with the 2024 presidential election is the same as that in american politics for the last twenty years. people say a two-party system is the root cause but the real issue is with what those two parties represent.
the republican party, once center-right, has become an extremist right-wing christian-nationalist and populist group where many of its members and even a significant portion of its leadership espouses fascist policies and outlooks. the republican party today wouldn’t just be foreign to eisenhower and nixon. neither president bush would recognize the party today – as evidenced by george w’s historic condemnation of the current republican candidate and his whole leadership as dangerous to the country and the world.
the democratic party is still the centrist party it always was but that centrism is no longer a balance against another near-center party as that party no longer exists on the republican side of the aisle. it has also attracted a whole collection of extremists to its ranks. the party has a more recent reputation of being a left-wing organization but its policies don’t back that up. some of its rhetoric has been changed to appeal to left-wing supporters but how it has functioned in government has remained much more centrist and sometimes veers sharply to the right, especially on matters of economic policy.
as a lifelong leftist, it has always troubled me that there is no functional left-wing party in america but that was a significantly smaller problem when the republicans were center-right. their dramatic dive into hardcore christian nationalism and fascism (or at least fascism-adjacent) approaches to both governance and policy have caught the nation and its weak-as-fornication democrats completely off-guard, resulting in the greatest health disaster the world has ever seen being intentionally perpetrated by the republican leadership.
while speaking in generalities is a good place to start, the depth of the issue is only visible when looking at the stated (or demonstrated in some cases) policies of both presidential candidates.
there is no real point in looking at the extreme-minority parties like the greens or the libertarians because their support bases are so inconsequential they truly shouldn’t be on the ballot. while it sometimes appears the green party is a left-wing organization, its policies are all over the map, some left, some center, some frighteningly right-wing under the veil of diversity and acceptance like their support for some of the most oppressive theocratic nations and views on religious freedoms as excuses for gender and sexuality division. the libertarians have always been described as a hard-right party but many of their policies pale in comparison to contemporary republican views, making them in some ways closer to center than the trump campaign.
various voting guides have outlined the candidates’ positions and evaluated them but that doesn’t actually serve the purpose here of looking at where candidates fall on the political, economic and social spectrums. a far simpler way to explore that is to see what left, center and right positions look like on different issues relating to the campaign then seeing which candidates’ platforms select those positions.
a good general rule about the political spectrum between left and right is the focus on the individual compared to the community. on the right, people believe in absolute individual freedom even if it hurts others. on the left, people believe in doing what is best for the community, even if it restricts individual freedom. those in the center tend to believe in a mixture of the two approaches. a left-winger will ask “if this policy is applied to everyone, what would happen?” while a right-winger will ask “does this give me more ability to be individually free?”.
abortion
the left-wing position on abortion is that everyone should have the right to make their own decisions about whether to have children, as long as they are capable of it. in other words, an adult should be able to say “yes, i want children” or “no, i don’t want children” but a child can’t consent to being a parent so any pregnancy is a criminal act on the part of the adult responsible for creating it – sexual assault, in other words. for anyone at least the age of consent, however, this is a free choice without restrictions. the only say the government has is in making sure that right can be freely exercised without interference.
the right-wing position on abortion is that, once pregnancy begins, ending it is a criminal act, regardless of how it began or the age of the person suffering from the condition – even a preteen or comatose patient. while this may seem at odds with the idea of individual freedom, it has developed over the years as a way to ensure an increase in population, something that is an obsession with the right, as a way to combat “replacement theory”, that those of other races will become more populous and take over.
a centrist position on abortion is usually the partial legalization of termination – only allowing it until a certain timeframe has passed or under some circumstances like children and/or victims of rape.
trump has often said he wants to leave the question of abortion to the states as a way of ducking the complete criminalization of it so he can seem more centrist on the issue but the fact that he has allowed the restriction on abortion to occur and continues to push for more restrictions clearly demonstrates his desire (and that of the republican leadership) to ban abortion, if not nationally, at least in a large portion of the country. [right]
harris often talks about the roe decision and wanting to restore the right to abortion until 22-24 weeks. while she is seen as the pro-choice candidate and definitely stands for reproductive rights compared to trump, her policy is clearly centrist, a compromise where abortion rights are restricted by the government to only the first half of pregnancy, something that has disastrous repercussions for many who wish to have abortions, given that it isn’t unusual at all not to know about a pregnancy until the twelfth week or later, giving a relatively short period of time before the restriction to access abortion care, especially for those who live in rural areas poorly served by clinics and with little financial ability to travel on short notice. this restrictive approach weighs particularly heavily on poor and immigrant communities. [center]
climate
the right-wing position on climate is that the only climate change currently happening on earth is natural and that humans can’t change the climate so we should do whatever is best for the economy. this position is deeply at odds with all scientific data and the scientific community but is widely supported by those on the right despite being untrue. this leads to a desire to continue to use fossil fuels and reject environmentally-friendly alternatives. the usual explanation for this is that non-fossil alternatives like solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear are more expensive but that, while sometimes the case, is often also untrue. practically speaking, fossil fuel interests heavily support the right and, in return, the right supports their interests.
the left-wing position on climate is, in keeping with looking out for the community rather than the individual, to eliminate fossil fuel consumption and implement strong permanent protections for the environment. this would require expansion in non-fossil energy production, primarily nuclear in the short-term, likely in combination with wind, hydro and solar, potentially geothermal, though that is rare in north america. it would certainly mean an end to drilling, fracking and oil exploration with a rapid shift to shut down all fossil electricity production and ban the production and sales of all gasoline and diesel personal vehicles within a short timeframe – in this case, perhaps a reduction of 50% within five years and their complete elimination on the new vehicle market within ten years. it would also involve a rapid conversion program for all homes currently using fossil fuel for heating and the elimination of natural gas provision within the country. the large-scale subsidization of these programs would stimulate the economy much like a wartime production boom and dramatically reduce the cost of energy once the initial investment in production and transmission was complete.
the centrist position is one of gradual shift from fossil energy to non-fossil energy and slow conversion of existing infrastructure.
trump’s energy position may be summarized in his own statement – “burn, baby, burn!” – and qualifies him as the most extreme-right leader the united states has ever seen on climate matters. [extreme right]
harris has changed her position dramatically during her political career from one of center-left, generally supporting environmental protections and shifts away from fossil energy, to one closer to center-right, now supporting drilling, oil exploration and even fracking. her policies on subsidizing infrastructure change and electric vehicle adoption are weak at best and she proposes little investment in even keeping up with international requirements for carbon targets. if not for her acceptance of the science of climate change, her clear pandering to the desires of the fossil fuel and automotive industries would mark her as right-wing on climate. [center-right]
religion
the left-wing position on religion is to push for its elimination in favor of knowledge, science and education. religion is a strong and convincing form of disinformation and brainwashing and a threat to progressive government.
the right-wing position on religion is to connect religion to national identity, pushing for its inclusion in all aspects of daily life and the replacement of knowledge and science with religion, often shifting the responsibility for education to religious organizations.
the centrist position is to allow freedom of religion with the state and its leaders disconnecting themselves from religious organizations and, if they are private members, never allowing those private beliefs to impact their governments or present themselves in public.
trump has declared himself a christian nationalist so his position on this is very clear. [extreme right]
harris makes her religious beliefs extremely public and has often spoken about her religious ethics as a christian, celebrating christian festivals using government funds, even using the white house for those celebrations. [right]
law
the left-wing position on law is to make it universal – one system of law for the nation, one organization overseeing law-enforcement, one organization overseeing the court system. in other words, the law is the same for everyone regardless of location, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or publicity. nobody is above the law and nobody, not even the leadership, gets special treatment.
the right-wing position is the opposite – to subvert the law to the will of the leadership, allowing for personal intervention and different treatment according to location, wealth or connections. it often typically includes the use of the law as a weapon of persecution and vindication against political and social enemies.
the centrist position is a middle ground – multiple systems of law based on jurisdiction, divided courts. the law is generally the same for most people but area to area it may shift significantly. while centrists don’t generally use the law to persecute their enemies, the law tends to favor those who follow their social desires rather than just the law in its written form.
trump’s position has often been very clearly stated. he wants to eliminate the power of the independent law enforcement, delegate a lot of legal authority to the states, pressure the courts to shift the way law is written and enforced and use it to punish his political enemies. his take on the law is reminiscent of the “enabling act” passed by the national socialists in germany in 1933, one of the first shifts in german society away from the rule of law into the rule of fascism. [extreme right]
harris’ position is to allow state and local law enforcement and local courts with minimal law enforcement oversight at the federal level for anything other than federal crimes and federal courts only coming into play after local procedures have been dealt with in most cases. she doesn’t appear to have any desire to use the legal system to punish her enemies but has no plans to reform an already right-wing judiciary and law-enforcement system. [right]
government structure
the left-wing position is to standardize and centralize government at the federal level, shifting state and local responsibility to implementation of laws and policies as lower rungs on the hierarchy where decision-making is eliminated in favor of all laws and policies applying to everyone the same – equality of access and equity of result applied to government. this would mean a dramatic reorganization of state and local governments to change them from independent entities to implementation bodies for federal decisions made by the elected representatives of the whole nation. this would standardize the treatment of all citizens and separate the public servants from the elected officials, meaning there would be much less opportunity for corruption and influence from those who might seek to profit from their positions.
the right-wing position is the opposite, to turn the federal government into a way to impose social policy and right-wing capitalist economics on the nation by force. it would shift independent public service positions away from qualified professionals and lifelong employees into the domain of party faithfuls and appointees. it would create a socially-conservative necessity for any who wish to succeed.
the centrist position is to maintain the status quo where most government workers are non-partisan and independent of the political sphere but where state and local governments are often influenced by local issues and there is no standardization of treatment across jurisdictions. centrist leaders typically avoid implementing sweeping social programs at the government level.
with his support for many of the ideals of project 2025, if not in name definitely in his own policies, trump and his followers seek to eliminate independent federal agencies and replace government workers with party loyalists, implementing ultraconservative social policies and christian-nationalist ideologies across the country. [extreme right]
as with most areas, harris wants to maintain the status quo, which has generally been a centrist compromise. [center]
immigration
the left-wing position on immigration is to allow unrestricted immigration of all who wish to come as long as they are prepared to abide by the laws in place. this doesn’t just apply to the country as an outcome but a philosophy where it becomes necessary to help all other nations provide just as good lives and services to their people. if immigration is completely unrestricted, that means the only way to ensure not the entire world shows up on your doorstep is to make sure their home countries are just as good to live in. this has knock-on effects in terms of international relations and the elimination of bad governments elsewhere, ending oppression and typically colonizing other areas to provide better government directly rather than trying to improve their governments.
the right-wing position on immigration is very simple – no generalized immigration and all immigration limited only to those who are desirable to the government, usually restricted by source nation and ethnicity.
the centrist position is to allow limited immigration.
trump’s policy is to allow realistically no immigration and to deport millions who are already in america. [extreme right]
harris’ policy is to allow even less immigration than is currently ongoing and build stronger safeguards to prevent illegal immigration. [center-right]
israel
the left-wing position on israel is to support the nation where the people are most equal – israel – against nations and areas where there is inequality and gender/religious segregation. israel supports gender equality and allows freedom of religion, permits all ethnicities to be citizens with equal rights, serve in government and the military, vote in free elections and hold passports. it is surrounded by religious extremist states and terrorist regimes that wish for its destruction and the genocide of its population. the standard left-wing position on warfare is to proacticely eliminate all enemies or at least fight them until they unconditionally surrender.
the right-wing position on israel is to support the terrorist and theocratic forces including the islamic republic of iran, egypt, jordan, syria, yemen and the “palestinian” terrorist army in gaza, judea and samaria.
the centrist position is to attempt to negotiate an armed peace between the two sides, allowing the terrorist and theocratic regimes to acquire even more territory than they have already taken from the centrist democratic state of israel. centrists usually attempt to end wars quickly, perpetuating long standing armed conflicts, extended periods of terrorist attacks and ultimately more warfare in the future. this is typically the position of most international organizations like nato, the united nations and the arab league.
trump’s position on israel is to push for a negotiated peace as quickly as possible with israel giving some of its remaining territory to the terrorist regimes in return for temporary peace – in other words, much the same as what was negotiated under former presidents including clinton. [center]
harris wants to put more pressure on israel to give territory but with much the same result of a quick end to the war without any resolution or elimination of israel’s enemies. her focus appears to be more on the side of supporting the theocrats and terrorists, oddly enough, despite her usual rhetoric on supporting the rule of law and democracy against terrorism and theocracy. [center-right]
gender and sexuality
the left-wing position on gender and sexuality is one of freedom and acceptance. the universal approach to community means that, as long as an identity or choice isn’t harmful to those in the community, there’s a huge benefit in welcoming everyone. whether someone is masculine, feminine or other, gay, straight or anything else is a personal question that has no impact on the rest of the community or the government so it’s not relevant. there’s no good or bad to any of these identity decisions and a diverse community benefits everyone as long as there is no intolerance.
the right-wing position on gender and sexuality is to connect gender to genitalia (not necessarily even to biological sex but to visible sex traits) and force sexuality to be heterosexual. why this is is a mystery as, even in biblical times, various genders and sexualities were commonplace. it appears to be a function of the christian church of the middle ages in an attempt to avoid a dilution of power through the rise of sexual expression and freedom to pursue either physical pleasure or identity expression.
the centrist position is to allow local and national organizations to place restrictions on some aspects of life depending on gender or sexuality expression – schools, universities and the military, for example.
trump’s position is the explicit denial of the scientific difference between gender and sex and confusion about the existence of sexual variation combined with a seeming disgust with anything but hypermasculine heterosexuality and his stated desire to grab women “by the pussy”. [extreme right]
harris appears to support gender and sexuality expression but doesn’t appear prepared to force local educational authorities at any level or the military to do the same. her approach to national policy is fuzzy but her vague descriptions suggest she may be willing to gradually shift the nation in the direction of universal acceptance. [center-left]
nato and european wars
the left-wing position is to take a central, involved position in ensuring the preferred outcome in international conflicts. membership in nato is a given but fighting on the preferred side in conflicts, directly rather than simply through financial or military support, would also be inevitable. in the specific case of ukraine, for example, a left-wing position would be to engage in battle on the side of the ukranians to eliminate the russian government and either implement a new european-controlled government of a divided russia or the annexation of russian land as a new american territory similar to puerto rico or guam in its administration, replacing its government and upgrading its citizens to american standards of government and law.
the right-wing position is to withdraw from international organizations like nato to focus internally, allowing the chips to fall as the will without american intervention. in the specific case, this would result in the fall of ukraine and its annexation by russia, likely the continued territorial expansion of russia into europe and likely the middle east.
the centrist position is to support at a distance with money and arms, perpetuating an ongoing conflict where neither side has an advantage. in this case, this means america and the rest of nato continues to allow ukraine to survive and fight back at the level of russia but restricts it from actually winning an all-out war to destroy the russian government and take its territory.
trump’s position is one of isolation. [right]
harris’ position is one of limited support at a distance allowing for defense and continuing the war into the future by not allowing ukraine to take the fight to the russians or use more dramatic measures to defeat its enemy. [center]
tariffs
the left-wing position on international trade is to provide government subsidies and intervention in favor of industry. in the case of america, this could be in areas like automotive production, steel and agriculture, areas where america typically has significant exports. this would lower the cost of producing and exporting these goods, making america more competitive and dramatically increasing exports. this is the approach of many asian countries like china, japan and to a certain extent india.
the right-wing position is to create trade barriers using tariffs, dramatically increasing the cost of imported goods and forcing americans to produce their own at lower quality and higher cost. the result of this is a massive increase in consumer cost and a significant inflationary surge. continued use of trade barriers has historically led to depression and hyperinflation and, in the case of much of the twentieth century, either civil or international war. at its core, many aspects of the second world war and the iranian revolution were the result of trade conflicts and the resulting inflationary pressure on the local economies.
the centrist position is to allow free-trade without barriers – the free-market economic model applied to international trade. this allows for the lowest cost to local consumers for most products and usually stabilizes inflation and prevents depression-level economic problems but does little for local production efforts.
trump has clearly stated he wants to start another trade war america can’t win against china, the dominant economic force in the world. [extreme right]
harris wants to implement a combination of free-trade and smaller trade barriers and tariffs. [center-right]
taxation
the left-wing position is to eliminate taxes on those in the lower socioeconomic brackets and dramatically raise them on those in higher income levels. this would include taxing the rich not just on their incomes but their amassed wealths, taxing inheritance at close to 100% and significantly taxing business profits. this results in an equalization of wealth and redistribution of power to make the country more equal, realistically eliminating the ultra-wealthy. a left-wing tax plan might look at 0% tax on income below $100k, 50% tax on income between $100k and $1m and 90% tax on income above $1m.
the right-wing position is to eliminate taxation or at least the majority of taxation, typically sticking to taxes on utilization of resources rather than taxation on income or profits – sales taxes rather than income taxes, that is. this results in a greater division between the rich and poor and the elimination of a significant middle-class. a right-wing tax plan might look like 10% tax on all income regardless of quantity.
the centrist position is to increase taxes on the rich to pay for increased expenses and reduce national debt while lowering taxes on the poor to relieve social pressure and prevent poverty. a centrist tax plan might look like 0% tax on the first $25k, 10% tax on the next $50k, 25% tax on the next $250k then 45% tax on everything above $325k.
trump’s position on taxation has always been to lower taxes on the wealthy. [right]
harris’ position is to mostly keep the tax system as it currently is while providing some benefits to the poor and middle-class. [center-right]
given all the rhetoric from both sides, are you surprised?