We use these terms in politics often (certainly I use “the Left” often, since I reserve the word liberal for those who value liberty). A bit of a comment is warranted on these words.
Historically, it comes from France, during the French Revolution. In the great Assembly Hall, where the self appointed delegates of “the people” met, various factions sat in physically different parts of the room. Since they were revolutionaries, all, by mere fact of being there, it can I think be safely assumed there were no PUBLIC absolute monarchists there, although presumably there were some private ones.
Rather, the right consisted in those who saw some value in tradition, who generally did not want to kill the King, and who favored gradualism in the process of political change. They wanted reasoned debate, moderation, and a certain skepticism towards those who wanted to radically alter the social landscape.
Patently, the system as it had existed in Louis XVI’s (I think that’s right) was corrupt. Broadly speaking, government was run by an oligarchy, and Old Boy’s Club. The King, for example, could offer plum government contracts for no bid to favorites. He could impose legislation which was not subject to veto by anyone. He did have restraints, though: as nominal defender of the Faith, he had to keep himself in the good graces of the Church. As an aristocrat, he needed to keep that class more or less satisfied with the status quo, lest they launch some sort of coup.
The decisions made by this group affected all the people, yet the people had no real say in them. It was a closed system.
The “rightists”, very simply, wanted to alter this. They wanted to put curbs on the King’s power. They wanted an Assembly to counterbalance the King, and force him to consider the public will in his decisions. They were, on my reading, the voice of common sense.
The leftists, in contrast, wanted not just a revolution politically, but in morals. They wanted to overthrow the entirety of the Catholic tradition. They wanted to build a utopia based on the ideals of liberty, brotherhood, and equality. On paper, these don’t sound so bad. Yet, the methods they chose were murder and political terrorism. That this was irrational was obscured by theorists among them who developed systems of wordplay that defended the indefensible. On the most basic level, how is the judicial murder of political opponents consistent with brotherhood? How is a de facto absolutist speech and behavioral code consistent with liberty? And if the Assembly has NO curbs on its powers–but not everyone can join–how is that equality?
Historically, look at the word right. You can be right, as in correct. We speak of human rights, as in claims to certain basic protections. And with respect to the left, consider the word sinister. It is related to sinistral, which means “left”. Or gauche/gaucherie, as in socially clumsy? In certain mystical traditions you have the normal path, and the “left handed” path.
As I see it, what we might term the mythical symbolism here is correct. The left, in France, and since, has been a symbol of evil: of the rejection of moral norms, political violence, and the imposition of wanton and unchecked power.