Beyond Left and Right: Rethinking Political Divides

Ryan Haylett

So, let's rewind to 1789, right? Picture this: the French Revolution is in full swing. We’ve got the French National Assembly meeting to decide the future of the country. And here’s where the famous “left” and “right” labels start, almost by accident. Delegates who supported the monarchy sat on the right side of the assembly hall, while those who backed the revolution sat on the left. It wasn’t, like, ideological at first—it was just, well, geography.

Ryan Haylett

But what’s wild is how quickly this seating arrangement became something more. The left started to mean change, progress, equality. The right? Stability, tradition, hierarchy. These ideas, they kinda—they just stuck. And as politics spread across the globe, the terms “left” and “right” became this shorthand for, you know, really complex beliefs and systems. Sort of like reducing an entire meal into just the appetizer.

Ryan Haylett

Here’s the thing, though. When we force ourselves into these neat boxes, left or right, we miss the real complexities of what’s going on. It's like trying to describe music with just two notes. You ever seen those political spectrum charts? The ones where it’s not just left and right, but also libertarian, authoritarian, and a bunch of other dimensions? They remind us that humans—and politics—are, like, way more layered than a binary.

Ryan Haylett

And you start to ask, why has this binary framework lasted so long? Well, humans love a good “us versus them” story. It’s easy. It’s tribal. It simplifies the chaos, right? But the simplicity kinda—kinda comes at a cost.

Ryan Haylett

So, let’s talk about corporate media, because, man, they’ve really nailed the art of making everything black and white. It’s no secret—they thrive on tension, they profit from turning politics into this high-stakes drama. Every story has to have a hero and a villain, you know?

Ryan Haylett

It’s not exactly subtle, is it? Fox News and MSNBC, they’re like, polar opposites on purpose. But at the end of the day, both are just feeding us the same type of meal—just with different seasoning.

Ryan Haylett

I mean, think about it. These networks have a business model that depends on us tuning in, getting angry, staying hooked. It’s drama, outrage—and it keeps their ad revenue rolling in. And and what’s the result? Instead of encouraging real, deep conversations, we get this endless parade of debates framed as left vs. right. It’s like they take the most extreme opinions and slap them onto TV screens, because nuance? Nah, nuance doesn’t sell ad space.

Ryan Haylett

And then there’s social media. Honestly, it’s like throwing gasoline on the fire. Algorithms aren’t showing you what’s fair or balanced—they’re showing you what keeps you scrolling. And you know what grabs attention? Conflict. Content that reinforces your existing beliefs gets pushed to the top of your feed, while anything that might make you pause and think, you know, that just kinda... sinks into the void.

Ryan Haylett

What’s scary is how this creates these echo chambers, right? You end up surrounded by people who think just like you do, hearing the same arguments on repeat. And and, like, before you know it, you’re pretty much convinced the other side is off-the-wall crazy. Meanwhile, any voices that dare to step out of this binary—they just get drowned out, erased from the conversation. It’s like the media’s built this playground where only two teams are allowed to play, and anyone else? Doesn’t even get let onto the field.

Ryan Haylett

But we don't all have to group ourselves into one of two categories. Look at Malcolm X, a name that everyone recognizes but, honestly, probably for all the wrong reasons. See, Malcolm wasn’t left, and he wasn’t right. He was for empowerment, for Black liberation, and, at first, for separation from what he saw as a fundamentally flawed and unjust system. But here’s the twist. Malcolm changed. He evolved. Later in his life, he began to advocate for something bigger—he moved past the nation-versus-nation mindset and started talking about human rights on a global scale. He broke free from any box people tried to stick him in because his true north wasn’t left or right; it was freedom, self-respect, and justice.

Ryan Haylett

And then there’s Thomas Paine. I mean, radical doesn’t even begin to describe this guy. In the 1700s, when everyone still thought kings were, like, ordained by God or something, Paine was out there yelling, “Nah, monarchy is a scam!” I’m paraphrasing, of course, but his pamphlet, Common Sense, literally sparked a revolution.

Ryan Haylett

The dude was anti-monarchist, pro-reason, pro-rights, but he didn’t trust government power any more than he trusted kings. He embodied liberty in its purest form.

Ryan Haylett

Paine wasn’t about left versus right, he was all about “don’t tread on me,” whether it was a king or a Parliament doing the treading.

Ryan Haylett

And let’s not forget Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Ryan Haylett

Talk about a guy who completely screws up the left/right narrative. He was a Republican, sure, but he wasn’t afraid to warn us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex—a problem that neither side of the aisle wants to tackle today.

Ryan Haylett

And, he championed infrastructure projects like the interstate highway system, believing government had a role in building something lasting and collective.

Ryan Haylett

Eisenhower was, well, pragmatic. He mixed caution with boldness. It’s almost like he didn’t care about labels; he cared about solutions.

Ryan Haylett

Do you see the pattern here? Malcolm X, Thomas Paine, Eisenhower—they didn’t live in the binary. Their thinking was fluid, dynamic, and rooted in something deeper: liberty, justice, and, yeah, accountability. These aren’t left/right values. They’re human values. And they force us to reconsider what the real political spectrum looks like.

Ryan Haylett

So here’s the big takeaway: maybe the fight isn’t between left and right at all. Maybe it’s about liberty versus control. Maybe it’s about freedom versus fear. And, honestly, if we keep letting ourselves be boxed into these rigid identities, we’re gonna miss the bigger picture.

Ryan Haylett

The solutions we need? They’re not on one side of an aisle. They’re in coalitions, in listening to the Thomases and Malcolms and Eisenhowers of our time—people who challenge us to think bigger, think differently, and, more importantly, work together.

Ryan Haylett

And that’s the challenge I want to leave you with today. What if we all started questioning the binary? What if we stopped asking, “What side are you on?” and started asking, “What values are you fighting for?” And what if, instead of worrying about whether someone fits your label, you asked, “Can I find common ground with them to build something better?” One conversation at a time, one coalition at a time—that’s where the change happens. You’ve got the compass. Now it’s time to recalibrate it.