I don't argue politics nearly as much as I used to.

In part because it's all just a matter of degree and all the labels are ill-fitting.

On the spectrum, near as I can tell, are two ends.

On the one side, there are governing (or non-governing) philosophies that to one degree or another respect individuals along with their rights, freedoms, uniqueness, ability to voluntarily consent or not, and subjective and varied tastes and preferences. You know... anarchy, capitalism (in the free market sense and including free markets that have relatively expansive welfare programs like the Scandinavian model), voluntary communitarianism, liberalism, libertarianism, minarchy, republicanism (in the small r sense), etc.

On the other side, there are governing philosophies actively opposed to all of the above, that view humanity as cogs in a machine, defined as members of groups, puddy to be molded into the borg for collectivist ends, all that. You know... communism, democracy (in it's pure and unrestrained form), dictatorship, fascism, nativism, nazism, progressivism, socialism, technocracies, theocracies, etc.

In between, there's the non-dogmatic but awful all the same systems like aristocracy, feudalism, military juntas, monarchy, oligarchy, etc.

As long as one leans towards individual freedom rather than collectivist control, I feel like they're more or less on my side, regardless of what party they belong to or what hyphenated subset they're in. Everyone but the anarchists and tankies tend to deviate from purity on something, but I'm happy enough as long as the lean is in the right direction. I'll debate finer points when I'm in the mood sometimes, but I'm much less inclined to be than I was just a couple of years ago.