I don't know what they are, but this is the problem with reducing complex ideologies into a single, linear continuum AND then further reducing it into the binary "left vs. right."

This was no more obvious than when this board a number of discussions regarding the categorization of fascism as "right wing." Fascism does typically value many right wing principles (Nationalism, maintaining social structures and hierarchies, private property, anti-communism, etc.), BUT it also seems absurd to place communism and fascism at complete opposite sides of the spectrum when in practice the diffences are hardly noticeable due to the authoritarian nature.

Here was see it in the Democratic party (liberals vs. progressives vs. Socialists), and maybe even moreso in the GOP (libertarians vs. neoconservatives vs. social conservatives vs. all-right). Not only does it the complicate things within a party some ideologies have left and right wing values (libertarians).

This all highlights the fundamental problems with a two party system, expecially in the Internet age, where people can be exposed to more principles and ideologies. I think having varying ideologies is great, especially since it exposes ideas and let's people find their niche.

However, those benefits are lost when we reduce those ideologies to the two parties. I really wish we had a multi-party system. And although coalitions of a multi-party system may look similar to our current system in practice, I think it would at least allow for more diverse views ideas, allow people to feel better about their political affiliation and support (instead of lesser of two evils), incentivize politicians to find common ground, and give voters more value, especially in the partisan states.