I'ma go with WOW, because the main premise is illiterate of political theory and history.

It is generally difficult to argue with somebody who identifies those operating in the interests of oligarchs, and the interests of the ruling class, as the opposite of such. It shows complete ignorance to what terms mean, and where they came from.

---

Theory, is the abstraction of complexity and systems, to better parse and understand the whole. Political theory attempts to create terminology to better represent the various ideas and positions of policy. Accurate representation of said terms is a requisite for any any and all discourse concerning politics.

---

The left/right dichotomy originates from the French Revolution. Whereby in the "National Assembly" there sat 2 "wings" of seating. On the left, sat those seeking policies of "The Enlightenment." Liberalism, IE the notions of democracy and liberty. There were those seeking republics, parliamentary systems, and democracies. On the right sat the monarchists, aristocrats, and theocrats. Seeking to maintain their authoritarian controls.

As time progressed and the enlightenment became realized, this dichotomy maintained itself in specific ways. Those seeking greater liberty and democracy shifted only to oppose those who still sought to centralize power and authority. This shift coalesced in the 19th century to identify capitalist owner class elites as another form of authoritarian. Though that concept essentially began almost as soon as they took power. Notions of "socialism" well before had already been taking hold as a fight against a very small number of "land owners" who owned all the farmland, and essentially forced the populous to pay "rent" just to be able to live. (David Ricardo was very vocally opposed to this "economic rent.") a greater knowledge of pre-Marxian socialism is necessary to understand the use of the word in this context...

---

To attempt to condense this into abstract theory, one must identify the commonalities as history has progressed into and through the 20th century.

As many have done well and poorly throughout the years, there are several themes which are recurring.

Left has always been an opposition to centralized power, as it always appeals for the removal of such authorities, in favor of "The People's" self governance, and self determination. IE democracy. Many such ideas have been floated as to how to organize such political and economic structure. But the main premise has always remained.

Some consider the opposition to "hierarchy" to be an effective description of this narrative, others consider a more materialistic approach, in which the values, wants and desires of each group are in opposition to one another. See the differences between Marxist and Anarchist methodology.

---

The point...

The main premise underlying this "topic" asserts that "Democrats," and their supporters are "Left", and Republicans and their supporters are "Right."

This premise is entirely illiterate of context, and history. BOTH parties operate under the control of "Donor Class" entities. Both parties are beholden to the ruling class of society, as this "ruling class" has essentially taken control of policy making. This means that BOTH parties are in fact "right-wing." as they are in favor of consolidated and centralized powers, as that is what insulates and isolates them from the potential loss of power democracy might beget.

This is reflected in several ivy league studies in which a study of our policy making shown that the donor class receives 90% of that which they ask in policy, and the rest of the populous only receives 30%. (The caveat, is that the 30% must coincide with the 90% of the donor class, Meaning that we really didn't receive anything "they" didn't want us to have) The illusion of choice. The US is a defacto oligarchy.

I argue that the premise is DEAD WRONG. History and context are both on my side.