The ten sides
"Left versus right" is one line. The real argument has more than two directions. Every morning we read the day's news through these ten worldviews, each with its own theory of what is wrong with the world and what should be done about it.
These are not insults or compliments. Each is a coherent way of seeing, held by real outlets and real people. Understanding them is the difference between thinking the other side is stupid and understanding why they read the same facts so differently. The last two, Identity and Tech / AI, are not single positions at all: each holds camps that disagree with each other, and we read them for that split.
Reads everything through class and power. Sees society split between the people who own (factories, banks, media) and the people who work. It treats capitalism itself as the root cause of inequality, war, and injustice, and reads strikes, foreign policy, and corporate profits as class struggle and empire.
Read here, for example: People’s World, Liberation News, Workers World.
The same critique of capitalism, but through the ballot box. Shares the view that capitalism produces deep inequality, but wants to move past it through elections, unions, and public ownership rather than revolution. It sees the Democratic establishment as too cautious and corporate to deliver real change.
Read here, for example: Jacobin, The Intercept, Truthout.
Institutions, norms, and incremental reform. Trusts courts, agencies, universities, and the professional press to improve society gradually. It supports a strong safety net and regulated markets, and treats threats to democratic norms and the rule of law as the top story.
Read here, for example: The Guardian, NPR, CNN, The Atlantic.
Process over position. The view from the middle. Reports what officials say and do without an explicit agenda. It values procedure, access, and institutional stability over any theory of what good government should look like, which is why it reads as "just the facts" and why critics call it false balance.
Read here, for example: Reuters, Associated Press, BBC News, The Hill.
Tradition, family, and moral order. Sees society held together by inherited institutions, faith, and shared morality, and is wary of fast social change. Unlike the populist right, it prizes constitutional prudence and worries about executive overreach no matter who holds power.
Read here, for example: National Review, The American Conservative, First Things.
Liberty first, on both the economy and your private life. The only lens here that opposes government from both directions at once: against economic regulation and against moral regulation. It backs free markets and free speech, drug legalization and open immigration, and is often the sharpest critic of tariffs and executive power on the right.
Read here, for example: Reason, Cato Institute, The Free Press.
Nation first. Elites distrusted. A populist-nationalist movement, not traditional conservatism. It combines economic protectionism, cultural conservatism, and deep distrust of the media, federal agencies, and academia, and is comfortable with strong government when it serves nationalist ends.
Read here, for example: Breitbart, The Federalist, Daily Wire.
Faith as the lens on public life. Reads politics through scripture and a Christian moral order, treating the culture war as a spiritual one. Abortion, religious liberty, and support for Israel are defining issues, and it is more populist and Protestant than the intellectual social-conservative tradition.
Read here, for example: Christianity Today, The Christian Post, CBN News.
The news as lived by America’s communities, and where they split. Not one position but many community standpoints (Black, Latino, Asian American, Jewish, Palestinian and Arab American, LGBTQ, Muslim, women, disability, Native, and more). Each asks first how a story lands on its community, and they often disagree sharply with one another. We read this lens for that internal split, never as a scoreboard.
Read here, for example: The Root, The Forward, Mondoweiss, The 19th, Al Jazeera.
The technology debate the left-right dial can’t see. Treats technology, AI, and the capacity to build as the first-order political question. It is internally split between build-it optimists and brake-it skeptics, a divide that cuts across left and right, so we read it for the geometry of the argument rather than a single verdict.
Read here, for example: Wired, 404 Media, Noahpinion, Marcus on AI.
A left-to-right dial flattens real disagreements into a single number. It cannot show you that libertarians and the populist right both distrust elites but split hard on tariffs and immigration, or that the anti-AI left and the AI-safety right reach the same caution from opposite premises. Ten worldviews keep those distinctions intact, so you see the actual shape of the argument. See it in practice in the daily briefs, or read how we put each brief together.
One short brief. The same news through all ten worldviews. Free every day.
Free to start. No spin. No yelling.
