When discussing the whole space of possible political views, there is no "both sides". There are seven zillion different axes on seven zillion different issues, some of them concrete ("should we forbid chemical companies from manufacturing neonicotinoid pesticides?") and some abstract ("what is the best relationship between individual creativity, the marketplace, and the state?").
"Both sides" (polarized duality) is partly an artifact of specific electoral systems. It can lead to people shooting at each other over tiny differences in doctrine — or, even more often, over which leader to follow this year.
Nah, one center-right (formerly centrist) and one far-right (formerly center-right). See discussion here and here.
In gist:
The Democrats have become the party of international free-trade capitalism with appropriate regulation, and with international policies that represent loyalty to the nation's traditional alliances.
The Republicans have become the local representative of the international far-right: the Putin-Trump-Erdogan-Orban-Netanyahu-etc. axis, focused on granting strongman leaders the ability to loot their states, purge opposition even among the elite (see DeSantis-Disney), betray the nation's traditional alliances (e.g. NATO) in favor of the far-right axis itself, and excite their "base" through hate & oppression of various minorities (e.g. immigrants, LGBTQ+).
The Democrats are the party of "keep the system working, but when you get a chance, try to make it work better for everyone."
The Republicans are the party of "tear the system down, and replace it with loyalty to our authority figures; keep the masses stupid and busy trampling on queers & foreigners."
Folks on the left may think that "the system" is shit, or that it can't be made to work better for everyone. But "keep the system running, it can be made okay" is pretty different from "tear the system down, all you need is loyalty to a strongman" which is what the far-right has to offer.
Yeah, I literally just said today's Democrats are a center-right party, and today's Republicans a far-right party. Back when the Republicans were neoliberal, they were center-right. But they're not anymore; they're aligned with Putin and the international neofascist tendency.
Oh! I was using "center-X" vs "far-X" as a distinction. The same distinction could be expressed maybe as "X" vs "radical-X" — the Democrats are "rightist" and the Republicans are "radical rightist" — much in the same way that we might say that social-democrats are "leftist" and revolutionary communists are "radical leftist".
A good non-radical leader can be one who is a good manager of the current system, who gently reforms it toward social goals. However, radicals would never accept such a milquetoast weakling; they want someone who will come in, smash everything, "drain the swamp", and implement the dictatorship of ... um ... someone.