It does seem to get convoluted. I think because each side projects itself onto the other for political purpose. Also, I think politics is very tribal today and people that side with left or right don't really fit in ideologically but claim allegiance with the standards of the tribe they believe they belong to. Thank politicians and media for that. They are first making, and then milking, tribal conflicts for their power and money gains.
I subscribe to the view that there is one primary continuum of ideological difference that defines the amount of government control over people's lives. Everything else is just personal opinion that, frankly, gets over-used to divide us into political tribes. For example, most people siding with the left tribe believe that the government is right to mandate vaccines to protect lives, but not right to mandate the right to life of a fetus. But some people claiming membership in the right tribe are supportive of some or all abortion rights, and also see a justification for government putting requirements on the people for the good of humanity in general.
Religion is also not a good test. There are devout followers of Christ who are very liberal (the Pope for example), and conservatives who are atheists. However, I do think the level of religious practice and believe within the culture is an important component of our worldview tilt (explained below).
It is the tolerance and desire for government control that I think defines the left or right.
At the very extreme right is anarchy. At the extreme left is totalitarianism. We all fall somewhere on that continuum.
A right-leaning worldview is one of the father (tough love, self-determination, freedom, independence, individualism, individual opportunity, responsibility, directness, objectivity and pragmatism, and consequences for behavior). A left-leaning worldview is one of the mother (caring, unconditional love, emotionalism, relativism, myth logicism, groupism, expected outcomes, cooperation, rules, saving people from themselves, collectivism).
My worldview is more of the father. I define myself as being a libertarian paternalist. I agree that we need rules but want limited government and smaller set of framework rules that people are free to pursue their own interest within. However, within that framework I want strong law enforcement to serve justice on those that go outside the framework of laws. I expect people to have a moral framework and to control themselves from going outside the rules. But if they do, I want them to be caught and punished for it.
This gets back to the problem of a secular society, and also a society that is rife with cultural diversity. A society without binding and common set of cultural beliefs and practices means there is no reliable foundation of morality other than individual interests regulated by what government lays on us. Left people tend to push secularism. They tend to push open borders and don't value traditional American values. This leads to a sort of lack of moral control of our fellow residents as anything goes because they just moralize their own interests.
This then leads to chaotic results in society... and then a demand to increase our laws and law enforcement to get back to some level of control. Then the mothering tendency of the left revolts over the perceived unfairness of it and demands that law enforcement stands down (ironically starting to advocate for anarchy, but since that is anathema to their mothering desire for government control, the father is disingenuously blamed for being immoral.)
The problem is this tug at extremes and political tribalism, when we should be debating where is the optimum position on the continuum to best ensure an overall health of the human condition. The pursuit of social perfection is the enemy of the good. No system is ever going to be perfect, so we should be constantly striving to only make it the best it can be. And the left and the right should always debate the pros and cons of their ideas... and not lock into some tribal war of left vs right extremes.