[horrysith]

Using a fictitious scale that uses terms like “left” and “right,” the economist has constructed a fantastical narrative to goad their readers into obedience, sabotaging them from ever considering any other possible scenario than the one presented.

Many such cases.

[NietTim]

It's a weird article for sure. Written for an american audience I presume, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to point out that "many european elections offer a wide array of parties"

It's a shame really, could have been a more interesting article if it didn't try to make things black and white.

[nor-and-or-not]

So, you disagree that the right and conservatives cling on to the older concepts, hierarchies, as well as racial and patriarchal structures of society, not because they have been proven as better, but because they had more control over women and people in general.

This is described as reactionary, a core element of the right; whereas the left wants societal progress, despite or because it breaks up old hierarchies and crusty structures, and gives people equal chances, empowers them through education, wants to set them free through collective ownership.

The whole political orientation is a scale, although not of two dimensions, but more, for example if we consider fiscal and corporate views.

But the terms left and right are definitely a valid spectrum and description of social progressivism vs. social conservativeness.

[r00fus]

Especially when they consider "liberal = left". No, most liberals are not leftist. It's also unclear what they mean by "right/conservative" too.

[HDThoreaun]

liberal largely does mean left in todays American political environment. Words mean what people think they mean, definitions change. Liberal certainly is completely disconnected from its original meaning today.