That the left to right political spectrum is problematic is not a novel thought. Like any map, model or abbreviation, it leaves out important details and is an extremely simplified depiction of an infinitely complex subject, political economy, or types of social and economic construct. Over the years academics and others have come up with slightly more complicated models which are far more representative of the range of ideas and illustrative of how they relate. There's a nice article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Regardless, for at least a century through the end of the Cold War, it was a relatively useful shorthand. It let someone know where one stood roughly on a broad spectrum of issues, from foreign policy, economic policy, and regarding social norms. Roughly, in western countries, the left favored a dovish foreign policy, an interventionist, redistributive economic policy, and to either overturn or moderate traditional societal values, regarding race and sexuality respectively. Right-wingers were hawkish, less inclined to intervene in the economy, and thought societal relations were more or less OK; if they weren't it was because the should be more like they had been at some point past. Very approximate, but a reasonable starting point for understanding and hashing out a view.
Since the end of the Cold war, this rough approximation has become nonsensical. Though what passes for or self describes as left is generally more dovish than their right wing counterparts, since the end of the cold war they have supported or called for interventions in the Balkans, North Africa, and Afghanistan. Though the left remains committed to economic intervention and control, they have been joined by much of the right, with the neocon Bush administration intervening in the market to save it from itself, and increasing skepticism regarding free trade from both major political parties.
Demographic changes and the latest recession, the deepest since the WWII, have engendered a populist view in which an interventionist and trade restricting take on economic policy is not incompatible with a traditionalist take on societal and family norms. Many on the right see little benefit in foreign trade and want to take it to elites, especially to Wall Street, which they may view (with some justification) as an extension of the government.
What to make of so called neo-cons? From their Trotskyist roots, they have kept much of the framework of their original worldview. Believing that individual prerogatives should be subsumed to the cause of national greatness and that a separate morality is applicable to elites, (echos of the role of the Party as vanguard for the people,) they are thoroughly illiberal. In keeping with the subordination of the individual and to further national grandeur, they embrace "big government conservatism" (their phrase) and have little hesitation in expanding the role of the state in all aspects of the economy and society.
In all, if someone tells you they are left or right, they explain less than ever about where they may stand on the issues of the day. A liberal could want more trade or less, to bomb the hell out of Quadaffi or not,while a conservative might want to "glassify" the middle east, or to withdraw the troops and just obliterate Wall Street.
Is there a better short hand we could use to make our generalizations more meaningful and relevant?
A more useful spectrum might be from a more individualistic and freedom oriented pole, with an emphasis on the rule of law to a collectivist, egalitarian and outcomes oriented spectrum. (about from lower left to upper right on the Nolan graph). It's tempting to set up a political spectrum which really ends up reading as from good to bad from one direction to another, but these are legitimate conflicting values for a society and for the political spectrum to address.
