Right vs. Left is Too Simplistic: Moving beyond stereotypes

We tend to think of American politics in terms of right vs. left; red vs. blue; Republican vs. Democrat. Such binary thinking makes perfect sense because the United States is effectively a two-party system. The Founders did not envision a two-party system (indeed, they thought they had created a system without political parties!), but historically, only two major parties have dominated American politics at a given time. For the past century and a half, the two major parties have been Democrats and Republicans.

Given the prevalence of our two-party system, it isn’t at all surprising that most people talk about politics in binary terms. But the reality of the American political landscape is far more complex.

For almost four decades, the Pew Research Center has conducted Political Typology surveys. The purpose is straightforward: “to go beyond people’s partisan leanings or vote choices and provide a deeper understanding of the American political landscape.”[1] In their latest study released in June, Pew researchers presented an analysis that makes room for more categories than simply left, right, and center. The 2026 political typology report identified nine different groups of voters.

Cluster Analysis 101

The methodology is fairly simple. Pollsters asked a series of 30 questions about politics, economics, and culture[2] to a sample of over 10,000 American adults. They interpreted the data using a technique called cluster analysis. This method compares responses to the questions using statistical software that groups answers together in “clusters” that appear to capture similar underlying concerns. Instead of researchers choosing which questions they think relate to one another, the computer matches questions together based upon underlying statistical relationships. Once the analysis creates the clusters, researchers look at the questions included in each group and interpret the results.

I have worked with cluster analysis in the past. No methodological tool is perfect, but I like this one because the first step of the process allows the data to sort of “speak for themselves.”

Nine, Not Two

Analysis of the data in Pew’s most recent study sorted respondents into nine distinct groups. Researchers at Pew looked at each “cluster” and tried to find common threads between the questions. They determined which groups were right of center, left of center, and in the middle, and then they gave each group a catchy title intended to capture the core ideological concerns of each group.

Pew labeled the nine groups (from ideological left to right): Leftward Progressives (7% of the population), Loyal Liberals (11%), Order and Opportunity Left (18%), Left-Out Left (12%), Tuned-Out Middle (9%), Pragmatic and Polite Right (11%), Unconventional Right (12%), Faith First Conservatives (12%), and No Apologies Right (9%). None of these groups is close to a majority.

For those of you who find the typology interesting, I encourage you to read the full Pew report and delve deeper into the analysis.

The results of this study are a good reminder that ideological commitments and political motivations vary widely. Pew identifies four different groups of Republican-leaning voters. Some are proudly in the MAGA camp; others are deeply conflicted and vote Republican because they see it as the least bad choice. Similarly, Democrats pull votes from four disparate groups. On one end of the spectrum are those who applaud the rise of Democratic Socialism; on the other end are those who are disaffected with government and feel that neither party understands their concerns. Almost one in ten Americans are best described as part of the “Tuned-Out Middle,” a group that does not identify strongly with Democrats or Republicans and who pays less attention to politics.

Moving Beyond Stereotypes

Pew Research Center’s latest political typology report reminds us that political views and voting decisions are complex and multi-faceted. People identify as politically left, right, or center for a wide variety of reasons, and many Americans are deeply conflicted about politics. We need to push against attempts to narrow political views into two or three warring camps and instead make room for critical and charitable engagement.

In campaign season, candidates are encouraged to magnify their differences with opponents. A flood of oversimplified and often misleading attack ads prime voters to view politics through the lens of “us versus them” and “good versus evil.” It is tempting to join the chorus and demean people based on their perceived political views.

But as Christians, we are called to love our neighbor and treat people with dignity as fellow image bearers of God. One way to do this is to seek greater understanding of those with different political perspectives. It is easy to stereotype people, especially in politics when so many public officials malign their opponents in ways that feed mistrust. Instead of assuming you know someone’s motivations (and let’s be honest, we often assume the worst), ask them to share why they support a particular candidate or issue position. Give people space and time to tell their stories. Pause to ask clarifying questions to understand their views better and listen to their responses.

Right versus left is far too simplistic. Pew’s nine-category typology is one possible way to expand our thinking. The key is moving past damaging “us versus them” mentalities and acknowledging that voters are motivated by a complex mix of concerns.

As we move toward the November election, let’s commit to stop making assumptions about others based on their politics, seek opportunities for substantive conversations with those who have different viewpoints, and find new ways to show love and care for our neighbors.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/collections/political-typology/

[2] For what it is worth, I am not a fan of the wording of several questions in the survey. I think the results would be more robust with more tightly-worded questions and a different mix of topics. Despite these qualms, I think the study has many strengths and is particularly useful to demonstrate the wide variance of ideological groups in the United States.