Some people think that the left-right dichotomy is always relative - as in, right of some position, or left of it. Others, the group I'm in, perceive its' about whether the policies one wants to advocate for help the status-quo / ultra-rich, or help The People - the former being right-wing the latter being left. And, as many people have long observed, a single linear dichotomy isn't really sufficient to discuss human politics. Be that as it may, traditionally, liberalism rose up as neither left nor right, criticized by both.
There's a good write up about it here, AFTER the author discusses (yet another) graphical, two dimensional grid type way of looking at politics. In my view, he makes a few mistakes, but the historical record he cites seems pretty good to me, but incomplete or the USA today, though it was written about 16 years ago:
Don't leftists/progressives and liberals together constitute the left wing?
No.
Some people think that the left-right dichotomy is always relative - as in, right of some position, or left of it. Others, the group I'm in, perceive its' about whether the policies one wants to advocate for help the status-quo / ultra-rich, or help The People - the former being right-wing the latter being left. And, as many people have long observed, a single linear dichotomy isn't really sufficient to discuss human politics. Be that as it may, traditionally, liberalism rose up as neither left nor right, criticized by both.
There's a good write up about it here, AFTER the author discusses (yet another) graphical, two dimensional grid type way of looking at politics. In my view, he makes a few mistakes, but the historical record he cites seems pretty good to me, but incomplete or the USA today, though it was written about 16 years ago:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm