The rational middle will be dwindling as long as they are always referred to in abstract without ever naming names.
Naturally, any rebuke of my position is evidence of their extremism, for steeped in their emotion they are unable to be rational. I, on the other hand, am wise beyond belief, empowered by the reason that Nature and my own path to self-growth have given me.
¹ To be clear, I always think about things carefully. I only mention this because it is clear that almost everyone else doesn't, as evinced by the fact that they do not agree with me.
The democrats are a center right party. The republicans are at this point, a far right party. It has been a deliberate strategy of the far right to paint the center as "socialism" (which a lot of Americans seem to mistake for communism...), because it makes their ideology seem less extreme. A lot of Americans have fallen for that nonsense, unfortunately. Definitions and framing and perspective matters a lot.
Americans aren't against socialized medicine or safety nets, just the "socialism" boogieman.
It’s obviously more complicated than this, but that’s the 5000 foot view.
This gets to a larger point. When the country was first founded, the different religious and political factions deeply distrusted each other. Religion was extremely important, and those who differed were considered wrong and/or corrupted in a way much deeper than I think modern, non religious people fully understand.
And yet despite this, they managed to cooperate with each other. It wasn’t perfect. And it didn’t always work; we did have a civil war. But it allowed for a regional plurality between peoples that were deeply different and factional, and no doubt considered the others evil or dangerous or a threat.
The only means by which I think we can escape this is a return to a respect for local autonomy. Allow people to shape the law where they live as they desire and reduce nationwide impositions. Give more authority to the states to create the world in which the people there want. If you think others would be trapped in repressive systems, give them a means by which to escape to yours.
Evil is perpetrated by violent coercion. The beliefs might be come to voluntarily, and may be more common in one framework than another. But the actual execution of evil requires coercion, which usually seems justified to the person perpetrating it.
Because the law inevitably requires coercion, coercion itself cannot be eliminated without lawlessness. But the laws people concede to can and should be varied. The social contract is only valid if the people have a choice. If we allow people that choice, people will flee the systems which coerce them unjustly, and they will wither. It will be painful to endure systems that seem obviously terrible without intervening. But there is no other way to audit your own biases then to let the people in each system decide which is better over time themselves, and no other way to avoid the inevitable violent conflict of imposing your values onto others who fundamentally disagree with them.