The federal system was supposed to help with this by allowing various approaches in various parts of the country. I think the state of politics today is due to the nationalization of every issue.

If California and Texas (for example) each decided it was more important to govern themselves than each other, it would be lower stakes and more productive to talk about issues like this.

Unfortunately people are really bad at reigning in their own power. So whichever side holds the federal office will naturally impose their view on the rest of the country.

There were constitutional protections for exactly this reason. We just decided they didn't count any more.

There are many people who find the collectivisim/individualism distinction facile and inadequate, though. I feel you're making a point about ideology in general, however I can't see what's wrong with subscribing to a particular ideology, so long as you agree with it. The point is not to follow it dogmatically.

The point I was trying to make was that the discourse is so dogmatic it's as if people live in alternate universes.

People can't even mention certain topics because the word you use to describe the topic reveals which "side" you are on (e.g. the "Muslim ban").

>(e.g. the "Muslim ban").

And "sanctuary cities".