I spend a fair amount of tme texting with a guy who is an avowed conservative. Doesn't see anything wrong with Trump, thinks people should just 'back off and let him do his thing'. This person used to describe himself as a Tea Party person; he doesn't, any more, but the basics are all still there. NATO? What's it good for, anyway? Pissing off other countries? About time. Removing the right to abortion? You don't like it, move to a state where it's legal. Not earning enough to make such a move possible? Your problem, not society's.
I talk to him in the hopes that I can understand a little of what motivates such a person, and in an attempt to find common points of agreement. Well...
I read a flame by a liberal person on Facebook of a conservative (who, actually, may not have deserved it, based on subsequent comments) regarding the reality of climate change. Seeing these two people, Iwonder if it might not -- probably is not -- possible for people of diametrically opposed viewpoints to come to an agreement on key issues. At least not without really, really good negotiating skills, or alcohol, or both. Even then, the points of agreement are lilkely to be superficial. In my case, he's still going to be strongly 'pull yourself up, don't ask for society's help'. And I'm not. How can we possibly comunicate? I believe it's possible, but I think it takes skills far in excess of what I have.
That's a sobering concept, and a saddening one.