Bravo! I wholeheartedly agree that we should see through the canard of the political spectrum--at least as that spectrum is typically presented in mainstream discourse. I try to do the same in my long Medium series on conservative shenanigans.
Our analyses seem consistent. I add some historical colour to the question of power's concentration, by saying that the "left" is humanistic whereas the "right" is animalistic. The societies that concentrate power in a minority incorporate some dynamics of the dominance hierarchies from the wild in which the alpha enjoys the bulk of the group's resources (food and mates).
So when you say, "Who is against the basic concepts of rights and freedom? No one. Nevertheless, some people are against granting rights and freedom to certain other people,” I’d add that that denial of equal rights to everyone is equivalent to anti-humanism. The crucial feature of conservatives is that they oppose the heart of modernity, the liberal humanist’s claim that everyone has an equal right to self-determination in virtue of our personhood as opposed to our caste, gender, race, or religious affiliation.
In place of modern humanism, conservatives posit our animality and thus the right of the few to rule over the many, or of some gender, race, or religion to rule over the others. The dominance hierarchy that concentrates political power (as in a monarchy, plutocracy, or dictatorship) is just nature’s intrusion (via the law of oligarchy) in our social affairs despite our anomalous capacity for self-determination. Humanists posit that radical break between human and animal societies, whereas conservatives are effectively social Darwinians.
