Here at Armed with Knowledge, we are big fans of the four-quadrant political compass; the other model, the simple one-line, two-pole ("right vs. left") model is insufficient to represent the diversity of political views.
A simple two-pole representation might have made sense in late 18th century France, when "the right" - represented by the color white - stood for authority, the monarchy and their royalist fanboys, and those opposed were simply "the left"; likewise, the model made sense when one side of the left was fighting against open-border free market economics and advocated complete worker control; one could just push that group to a pole opposite of the right-wing authoritarianism, monarchy and royalism, leaving a model where economic and social freedom sat in the middle, between two "authoritarianisms". But we no longer live in that reality.
In fact, that hasn't been the case since the 1920s, when another system came on the scene. That system sought to direct the liberal market economy so that it could serve the nation, but likewise eliminated the controls that stood in the way of monopolies and advocated a foreign policy that allowed for corporate expansion and common-currency creation throughout Europe. Today, many consider it to be right-wing. In a way, it was in that it grew out in response to the failings of the left, and as protection against the left, and generally built around the same traditional motifs as the traditional right-wing. But was it really the same as monarchism, and thus appropriately positioned at that exact, right-wing position? No.
Those who supported raw market capitalism, without states or borders, probably could have cared less. They had every reason to be perfectly content with their "everything but us is not center" model, as it threw rival ideologies to the poles, suggesting that those movements, by their position alone, lacked balance and were a departure from normal.
But, to be fair, as these movements were fighting for traction in the same European subcontinent, it also made sense to understand each as the absolute rival opposite to the other and thus on exact opposite ends. The model also made sense because it highlighted the primary point from which the model based on wealth capital power and individualism could be distinguished - strong government policy.
So what happens when those who wish to position themselves in the middle begin to favor censorship and throw their countries into wars as dictated by an elite? It is dishonest to suggest that this position is somehow anti-authoritarian (For more on that political scale, see: Hollywood, Propaganda and the Only Political Scale That Matters), or even somehow less authoritarian than any other system with centralized control.
Accordingly, one can begin to appreciate the four-quadrant political compass, where a simple barometer like "more dedication to said idea" becomes the sole reason for placement out of center, much like the previous model had purported to do. It makes sense to call such placement an extreme, because it represents an extreme inclination. Sure, this sets the pace for an emotionally-loaded assessment, but that is perhaps simply a consequence of the legacy of the systems that has pursued any one ideal with absolute intensity. Often, that focus has resulted in neglect somewhere else to an unfortunate end.
Accordingly, one can begin to appreciate the four-quadrant political compass, where a simple barometer like "more dedication to said idea" becomes the sole reason for placement out of center, much like the previous model had purported to do. It makes sense to call such placement an extreme, because it represents an extreme inclination. Sure, this sets the pace for an emotionally-loaded assessment, but that is perhaps simply a consequence of the legacy of the systems that has pursued any one ideal with absolute intensity. Often, that focus has resulted in neglect somewhere else to an unfortunate end.
In any case, in a COVID-19 world, we can begin to appreciate the ambitiousness of a four-quadrant political compass, because there are definitely multiple positions that have emerged based on the dominant world views that seek to established themselves as the prevailing force in modern society. Have a look at the following model we have come up with. Can you present the situation any better?
