Your using socialist left wing definitions. They don't work. What you called right is the right wing of the left and found left of center assuming you use Constitution as a center or sacred ground. Forget all that liberal sec prog garbage.

Find your own way. for example. My Center is the main activity area . some may go a bit toward the right meaning less government more citizens some to the left meaning more government but less citizen control. My personal rule is as long as they keep one foot even one toe firmly planted in the center they can't get too carried away. Some of our current Republicans do that in our got nowhere else to go attitude or they try. 15 in the Senate perhaps.

In my version I have Repub, RINO, RINO Socialist, Socialist, Democrats, DINOS, Democrat Socialists Sec Progs, National Socialists or Nazi's and International Socialists or Communists. All have one item in common. Government Control of Citizens and all are fascist in nature meaning any means to maintain control of everything.

Really not sure where the Libertarians are but they float somewhere around center.

Center Constitutional Centrists not the current party - MY version.

To the Right citizens control governments not much out there but plenty of room . Extreme is of course anarchism. meaning No government to control.

But like all objectivist tests that's MY version. Pick any term you want except probably liberal and conservative because then you have to define which version to make it useful and figure out your own system - and why. the objections will come mostly from the collectivist lock step left. Disregard them and their antiquated system of definitions. Doesn't work. It's meant not to work but to confuse and control.

Then does it work - for you? If Yes
Is it useful? If Yes Rule two except for constant testing because you know the left is going to change definitions again by supper time.

Then Rule Three Moral Evaluation.

Same as as testing dirt or soap or MacDonalds vcersus Jack Inna Crack.

The vertical idea is very old and is the original class systems were described so I cannot take credit.

The dude with the best sword became the leader if his tactics worked. Then Chief, then King, then Emperor but changed the reason - so as to pass on the power to offspring - to something called 'divine right of so the classic vertical bar is God, King, Satraps or apparatchiks or bureaucrats, mark and X on this spot and below that varying levels of serfs etc. The X is a useful point to cross vertical with the left right horizontal bar.

Next realize the 'divine right' or source of power is no longer royalty - or is it - but the citizens. Depends on where you live in the world.

The horizontal bar puts the vertical where ever it fit's best and as high or low as it needs to be to describe any given social political order.

Horizontal then becomes easily defined as Left is government over citizens and more to the right Citizens over government.

Center is where they cross and more importantly why they cross at that point.

Ours should be the Constitution and was up to a hundred years ago. Now it is the center of the left. Wants adjustment.

The terms came from 'divine RIGHT of Kings' and the left was chosen first by the Socialist style movements of the French revolution at the first assembly meeting.

The revolutionaries took the power of the King unto themselves but retained the left as their hangout (when they decided they needed an ruling class within their classless society per Plato no doubt.)

Faced with the issue of what to do with the now empty left it was easy to create their own and marginalize that formerly occupied by divine right of kings and in the new USA by the citizens as a source of power.

Keeping all that in mind you should be able to construct your own set of definitions and, as I have done, deny and repudiate those created by the left. Which in any case make no sense or you wouldn't have to ask why do Republicans always cave and why did most of them become the right wing OF the left. OK too much speech time but a review of where we have trod before should be helpful to the newcomers.

Remembering to use the three laws of objectivism as that is what we are all about. And yes there is room for objectivity in ideas, dreams, wishful thinking and wild ass guesses.

Unions had their place in the beginning and were much needed. But they missed the boat in two major respects.

One was being taken over by the socialist movement which from the 1930's on counted only labor leaders and not members as part of the overall socialist hierarchy and married those leaders to the statist and corporatist leadership.

Even then the idea was in front of them but they missed it completely treating labor as something done with sweat and hand tools instead of making it all inclusive. The way I put it is The tools of production are not the machines but the the people working in any given industry or other work site. Espresso stand or whatever.

All are one form or another of the skull sweat or hand callous labor that make things work in any company or for that matter any group venture. CEO to gate guard and even investors who provided the start up funds. All means of production. In a true union each has respect for the other parts of a successful business. That notion took a long time to develop from the more feudal ways that were dragged 'as is' into the industrial revolution.

The idea came of course from AR AS when John Galt said I will turn off the motor of the world. Not just the mechanical motors but the mental motors and the willing hands that operate the machines. Galt had to go out and speak with key people and get them to start the ball rolling. Socialism though does it as an inherent uncurable fault. 'They pretend to pay us we pretend to work.'

The proper union attitude should have been all inclusive but with any one in management or supervisory positions as members but not in a leaders position (shop stewards etc.) They would have their own. Each factory or other enterprise in their own association.

Next point they missed or glossed over on purpose was treating employees as a business unto themselves each and severally. The gate guard or janitor or punch press operator or secretary are in the business of selling their particular skill providing a product or service. So...why if corporations have 'personhood' and those rights do individuals not have corporationhood and those rights quid pro quo.

Employees Association with the same power and responsibilities of current unions arise and with input from all levels. Respect to other means of production becomes ingrained and they can expand in two directions. One is Employees and Residents of the local area. The espresso stand operator and the other support structures of any major business become part of...and along with that comes a larger pool for credit union? medical insurance? purchase of pharmeceuticals? any number of ideas...or they may reject the notions such as 'from each according to ability to each according to need.'

Nonsense and destructive it did state a real need and unions have failed to address that now sinking to how to strangle hold a certain segment of industry with the least number of members but providing the most amount of cash donations and votes.

Typically 10% or so and in key industries maybe 20-30%. Some others zero percent.

The Alaska Pipeline project showed the worst features of union using an Oklahoma based Electrical workers I seem to recall union to install pipelines. Check me on that one..It is not exact. and it's four am.

Add Davis Bacon privileges as a tax money laundering method for campaign contributions but in return only certain unions getting the fat cat pay checks erroneously called prevailing local a blatant lie to be blunt. One would also find the majority of any group skill set were not invited to join the union but kept out so that the membership matched the jobs provided by Davis Bacon.

Enough on that but where there is no ownership there is no pride so an Employees association tends to provide among other things a method where the employees become the investors. Something any union retirement fund does anyway. But there is now 'skin' in the game and a responsibility to work towards business success.

You won't find that in any form of socialism but you will find it where capitalism with a conscience is found.

Government excepted because they produce nothing? Not so. If they get off the track of being 'in control as regulators.' and get on the track of ensuring a healthy and protected environment for the real businesses to flourish they are contributing to a need.

Of course you would have to fire the lot of them and start over with a major attitude retraining and adjustment program - except for the military. The practitioners of the basic reason for government to exist -- Police, Fire, Military, standards setting where needed (width of roads and traffic lanes, meaning of Bachelor of Science etc. perhaps a few others -- for the most part already have that characteristic.

Sink to the level of the unneeded and probably illegal at federal level Department of Education government has degenerated to the point of not needed cancel 99.9% of the whole thing. They have yet to do anything to cause pride of ownership or a feeling of contributing to production.

That was when the division of the legislative branch followed the division of the party system into the socialist model consisting of Statists, Corporatists and labor leaders. Should be termed Statist Leaders, Corporate Leaders, and Labor Leaders. Also known as Republicrats, Democans also known as the Government Party or more simply as "The Party or 'There can be only one Party'."

Meaning there is only one political belief system within the framework of "A Republic."

Of course we have two. Constutionalism/Capitalism and it's foe Socialism. or Marxist Leninism. Citizens vs. State/Single Party

Another difference designed for obfuscation is designating the center of the left as the center. instead of, and more properly, the Constitution as the center. And not as a mugwump center but as an active, vibrant center with key abilities.

One of them is to effect changed within itself using the intentionally slow deliberative amendment system. Just fast enough to provide an escape hatch just slow enough to escape being an abandon ship panic approach.

Instead we have this false phony center which disallows any mention or discussion of a properly defined right to balance a properly defined left.

The left is the center center of totalitarian government leaning despotism and IT has it's own left and right for sure. But they are not THE center. Simply put the left generally agrees and supports the concept of Government Over Citizens - and government as the source of all power.

The true center of course follows the Constitution implicit but draws on it's true support fro the real source of all power namely, 'the citizens.; The concept here is one of sovereignty or true power Citizens Over Government. Sovereignity is the old meaning of sovereign as supreme independent authority. The right is the old stamping ground of the 'divine' right of Kings or sovereigns and is or should be the the home of the divine right of citizens as the sole source of power.

What the union members SHOULD be doing is acting as the divine right of control over their union leaders instead of giving in as they will once again to a totalitarian system. Not seeking greener pastures elsewhere but living uip to their responsibilities and using the power of the rights granted to - in this case- employees or workers for a certain career field

Translate it up or down its the same right and authorities. Citizens have the responsibility to protect their rights

CITIZENS have the right and responsibility to be in control of any form of government be it union,political party or federal in nature. Be it Statist/Corporatist, Corporatist/Statist, or the third leg of the socialist triumverate labor organizations.

It helps to think vertically instead of the leftist left right system.

Citizens (the source of all power)
Over
All
Temporary (Government Employees and)

My local friends were laughing about that Carrier move made two comments. Was Trump going to take the credit for Carrier like he did for Ford? (It was Kasich that engineered the deal and the deal only included cars made for sale in the USA.) Number two would the USA unions like to take lessons?

JFK was a social liberal but a economic conservative. I still think it was LBJ. but he was a somewhat competent screw up not. Stil his death ratio puts him in a class by himself for worst of the bunch.