I'll cede that both poles have responsibility and that the conservative right have unified themselves mostly on a shared set of identities with little room for consensus, this is a problem.
But I think we need to remove ourselves from totally binary thinking (he says as a he programs all the time) and separate some concepts like neo liberal financial models from liberal social principles as I bet we would agree on the social and disagree on the financial. I'm assuming a lot so please correct me where I'm wrong. Reactionary populism is very often correlated to what are perceived to be unfair economic policy (see "reparation" payments of post world war 1 germany to france...ended tragically in 1945).
Dismissing the "conservatives" as on unified entity despite their strong coalition of identity misrepresents the problem as I see it.
Bah, sorry, this is like a "drinks in bar" level of uff-the-cuff conversation on my part. Your reply was wonderful though :)
> Othering people based on a diagnosis of "not enough different people they talked to" adds to the problem instead of addresses it.
Fwiw, there's a really rad Santa Fe Institute podcast that addresses that very thing, which I'm listening to right now. tl;dr - we're all terribly biased but mostly just about people we DON'T have connection to, while we're FANTASTICALLY great integrators and estimators of even small nuances in the social fabrics that we're directly in conversation with. https://complexity.simplecast.com/episodes/9-U7UI7GsP