The USA red/blue split is an invention of the TV networks and a product of color TV, although when first introduced in 1980 the colors were reversed. This entire thread is about utter BS since reducing the political divisions of all states into a single bipolar pair of descriptions is ludicrous. Actually JFP is 1/2 right when reducing conflicts to order vs equality. The other major traditional division is centralizing vs local/regional/federalist (the modern version of court vs country). The currently ascendant division of cosmopolitan vs nationalist/traditionalist can accommodate either division (cosmo and centralizing vs traditional and regional) but that is a product of the 21st century. And please spare us the colors since the association of colors and political movements can be specific to each nation. Thanks for listening.
Except for the fact that red=progressive/radical/socialist/social-democratic, blue=conservative, white=royal etc. have been pretty universal in the West for ages. Observe how the royalists were the Whites in the Russian civil war (as they had been in France and other European states), while the communists were the Reds (just as the Parisian communards had already been). Anyone who thinks the red-blue split and all those colour-associations are very recent and always differ by country is just plain wrong.
As for universal political divides, I would say the following are pretty much the age-old ones:
-- established elite/aristocracy vs. lower classes/'new men'
-- tradition/conservatism vs. reform/progressivism
-- hierarchy vs. egalitarianism
-- state authority/big government vs. personal freedom/small government
-- free markets/capitalism vs. economic planning/wealth redistribution
-- free trade vs. economic protectionism/mercantillism
-- centralism ('court'; 'urban') vs. decentralism/localism ('country'; 'rural')
It's worth observing that established elite/aristocracy, tradition/conservatism and hierarchy are almost always represented by one faction, while the opposing faction represents the lower classes/'new men', reform/progressivism and egalitarianism. This is essentially the universal struggle of the '
haves' versus the '
have-nots'. It is this struggle that
@John Fredrick Parker describes, I think.
Free markets/capitalism and free trade tend to be linked, just as economic planning/wealth redistribution and economic protectionism/mercantillism often turn out to be linked. This is what one might call the '
economic right' (free markets/trade) versus the '
economic left' (protectionism/central planning). Unlike the way it may seem from politics today, the 'haves' don't have to be linked to the economic right. Whichever system has led to their power is the one they will defend... and the have-nots will likely strive to implement the opposite.
Either side can also be the one that wants a big, powerful government, so
state authority/big government vs.
personal freedom/small government is also very murky. In some cases, the 'haves' want to preserve a minimalist state, while the 'have-nots' desire a big government (presumably for purposes of redistributing the wealth). In other cases, the 'haves' in fact represent a big powerful and repressive government, while the 'have-nots' wish to overthrow it (presumably for the sake of increasing personal liberty). I do think that the 'economic right' tends to want a small government, while the economic left tends to want a big government.
The
centralism vs.
decentralism issue can also go either way. Any party can be centralist or decentralist, depending on the circumstances.