Thanks for the spirited reply, Perceval, but I don't see a place where you justify a disagreement with the substance of my position. What I do see is you bragging about your acceptance to a nice school. Not to belabor the obvious, but lording your supposed superiority over opponents is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
Maybe the first part is going in the direction of a productive discussion -- are you complaining that the split between "right wing" and "left wing" is so general as to lose all salience to the discussion at hand? I assume that can't be your position, because that's pretty obviously wrong.
> lording your supposed superiority over opponents is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
It wasn't really an invitation to discussion.
> the split between "right wing" and "left wing" is so general as to lose all salience
No, the left–right split is just fine for talking about U.S. politics. It becomes more problematic when you begin to include other countries whose political divisions split along different issues.
But it becomes almost totally useless if you try to shoehorn "most of political theory" into two categories based on only two criteria (social, fiscal) that, gosh, just happen to match up with the two present day U.S. political parties.
Maybe the first part is going in the direction of a productive discussion -- are you complaining that the split between "right wing" and "left wing" is so general as to lose all salience to the discussion at hand? I assume that can't be your position, because that's pretty obviously wrong.