@DAVID: Your premise is that compromise is possible. But it’s not only impossible, it’s undesirable for both sides. As we see when the sexes are granted equal opportunity they do not converge, they more readily express their biases. All human differences are reducible to minor variations on the admixture of sex differences. (yes, sorry, it’s true), Sex is the dominant if not exclusive vehicle for evolutionary differences. Those diferences are female empathic equaltarian of the herd and male systemic meritocracy of the pack. And while we are all an admixture, we sort, independent of sex, to those sex differences in moral bias, preference, and want.
So, there is no convincing, there is no persuading, there is no changing. We are wealthy enough to specialize in the satisfaction of our moral intuitions (sex differences in moral bias) and therefore we are seeking to form polities that satisfy our new market demand for different metaphysics, institutions, traditions, norms, and laws. All that is occurring is that the female intuition, upon entry into discourse, economy, and politics, when combined with the incentive to satisfy women’s insatiable hyperconsumption of everything from the material to the virtue signal, by politicians, education, academy, marketers, and financiers.
So the only solution is devolution back to the original design of the (west germanic) USA, and the Holy Roman Empire that was the dominant force in the evolution of European civilization: an alliance of small states each producing commons that are needed, wanted, preferred, by the different groups. And to sort as we have in the past (Latin, German, Scandinavian, baltic, Slavic, east Slavic) into those states that serve the interests of our instincts – instincts we are in the luxurious position to express in political differences, and to evolve according to those differences, while trading in goods and services, yet producing local monopolies of government, culture, tradition, morals, ethics, and manners.
So a leftist or center-left would seek unity by instinct but a conservative would seek separation by instinct. AFAIK we have no choice but to separate since large political scale under agrarianism was as valuable as is small political scale under post-industrialism. Even asking the question of ‘compromise’ is an ask for quantity over quality, where the right seeks quality over quantity.
I think David (who I do appreciate) doesn’t understand that the Right (male: responsibility, meritocracy, hierarchy) was an optimistic right because of Christian and enlightenment tradition, but now, with the rise of woke since the 90s has converted to the pessimistic right, and given up on the possible ‘maturity’ of the left (female: irresponsibility, equity, equality) because of the left’s adoption of (Female, Abrahamic Occult Religious) Marxist(Pseudoscientific Religious) tactics (Saul Alinsky) of warfare (Gramsci) against the institutions of cultural production (of European individual responsibilty) by continuous mutation of undermining, character assassination, ‘canceling’, and sedition (Critique, Pilpul, and female GSRRM), especially of our history and our empirical, common, laws, to avoid rational debate and rational exchange of suppression of impulsive behavior (leftism) for redistribution in the form of commons (rightism).
So ‘we gave up’. Technically speaking I’m a classical liberal (Jeffersonian). But classical liberalism is an optimistic strategy that all men can join the middle class, by adopting middle-class manners, ethics, morals, traditions, and institutions, of self-determination by individual responsibility, truth before face, duty before self, sovereignty in demonstrated interests, and reciprocity in display, word, and deed.
We gave up for the same reason our ancestors left Europe: Leave behind the ‘lazy degenerate peasantry, the lazy degenerate church, and the lazy degenerate aristocracy’ to attempt once again to create a majority middle-class civilization, under the parenting of a natural aristocracy, rather than a fictional or hereditary one.
Which leads to Darwin, and the left, which is nothing more than a revolt against the Darwinian explanation for not only European success in the bronze, iron, and steel ages – but for the difference between all civilizations: rate of evolutionary adaptation vs rate of evolutionary maladaptation. By 800AD every single civilization other than Europeans had failed. By 1200 we had begun to drag ourselves again out of the same superstition and sophistry that had stagnated the entire world.
The question is why? The answer is relatively simple: our law, our aristocracy, and our military, was more influential than all the scribblings of the philosophers and theologians.
As always, apologies for dense analytic prose.