The paradigm of the right-left political spectrum has its etymological origin in a 200 year old seating arrangement. Yes, that's correct, the entire framing of political conversation since the French Revolution has been based upon the position of the members of its National Convention. Those to the right of the convention tended to the revolutionary status quo while those to the left adhered to towards evermore revolutionary Jacobinism.
The absurdity of the continued use of this lingual-conceptual paradigm is made apparent by its inherent relativism. While the "right" of the French National Convention were "right" in the sense that they where still ultimately in support of the revolution (they basically wanted the revolution to happen slightly slower). This made any anti-revolutionary sentiment inherently outside the political Overton frame (ergo "reactionary" or "far-right"). Similarly the contemporary "right" accepted within the official institutions of modern neo-liberal states are also trapped in a paradigm of undying leftward movement, being intellectually trapped advocating for either the continuation of the status quo or further neo-liberal revolution at a speed limit.
My point is "the right" (or "rightism" proper) doesn't actually mean anything. All that aspires to be usefully political is trapped within a seemingly inescapable paradigm, one of inevitable leftward movement were anything reactionary or revisionary seems unthinkable. As a result, any mainstream "right" of the modern Occidental state has simply the policy opinions of the mainstream "left" of a decade hence.
The Girondins (the "right" of the revolutionary National Convention) have, on their ideological rap-sheet: Republicanism, Classical Liberalism and Economic Liberalism. Identifiers which might earn them the label "far-right" by today's standards ("far-right" meaning anything the current regime doesn't like). It is the contemporary and seemingly-inevitable movement into the relative "left" of neo-liberal globalism which prompts the question: In what sense did the revolution end?
The paradigm of the political spectrum draws the 'light' of policy intractably towards the revolution of the "left” which swallows it up like a devouring black hole, never again to be glimpsed by the intellectual zeitgeist. It seems that ever since the capture of political discourse as such by the seating arrangements of the National Convention we have been stuck in a revolutionary realism. Consequently, you wind up with "conservatives" who extol a return to the liberalism of 10 years previous. Anything with any immovable principle against any of this revolutionary movement is clearly "far-right" not only in the sense that it is thing the regime doesn't like but also so "far" as to be a madness off the map of the spectrum which was instigated by the revolution of 1789.
It is in this sense that any "right", or conversely "left", that is defined substantively will be entirely context-dependent. Hence there is no fixed point where "right" or "left" can actually define themselves within revolutionary realism, there is no timeless deontological grounding for any political ethic. They can only ever be defined a temporary morality in relation to the rest of the spectrum.
There remains, however, the maxim: the map is not the territory. The map in this case being the revolutionary realism of the left-right political spectrum, a demoted reality where the 'acceptable' conversations of all mainstream formal politics, academic political ‘research’ and entertainment news take place. To occupy the territory of possibility outside of the demoted map is to remain not only currently unthinkable but in many senses undetectable. The retardation of the mainstream is truly apparent by the contemporary penchant to call anything it doesn't like "far-right", which shows an existential lack of imagination of political possibility. To change the paradigm requires a paradigm-shift, nobody will know what this looks like until the spirit of political imagination expresses itself and it actually happens.
The left-right political division is clearly breaking down because it lacks the social base that used to make it real. Dealignment and rising antipolitics means nowadays it is political authority itself that is most invested in maintaining this traditional left-right political mockup