To the original question, Jonathan Haidt has a very interesting argument in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
He argues, and I think rightly so, that Left and Right are divided by misunderstanding. Conservatives tend to see Leftists as mere ideologues (which, at their worst, they are, of course), rather than as well-intended collectivists (which, at their best, they can be). Meanwhile, Leftists harpoon conservative individualists as "uncaring," or "selfish" or "indifferent to suffering," (which, in extremis, some can be, of course) rather than as defenders of freedom, opportunity, and individual rights (which, at their best, they are, or course).
But Haidt's interested in taking the best, most kind reading of both camps, and making them understand each other (it's not even reasonable to expect that extreme Lefist ideologues or Right-wing anarchists would ever understand anyone -- even themselves. They are what Jordan Peterson calls "ideologically possessed," and need to have that fixed first). But the moderate middle of both camps, Haidt thinks should learn to listen to each other better.
What individualists and collectivists (the middle ground) have in common is a lot: they agree on the importance of human beings. They agree that there are serious problems. They agree about what many of those problems are. They agree that the right thing to do is to help people out of bad situations. They agree that compassion is very good, and that things could and should be better than they are. And they even agree that some particular political arrangement is a key to making that happen. They are, to use Haidt's term, "righteously" motivated: so demonizing each other distorts the conversation and does a disservice, he says.
But here's where they disagree: not the motive, but the method.
Individualists think that the best way to a better future is to secure the rights and opportunities of individuals, to maximize human freedoms, and to liberate options to take responsibility for one's own life so as to become more personally powerful in the world. This, they say, is the route to dignity and flourishing. To do otherwise is to harm the individual and to cut off opportunity: and this would be "unrighteous." To increase personal freedom is the "righteous" thing to do -- for everyone.
Collectivists think the best way forward is to mobilize the masses, the collective, and to immerse the individual in a wave of social action. For individualists, big government is a threat, an incompetent and clumsy entity at best, and at worst, authoritarian. For collectivists, big government is the tool of overthrowing "oppression," that vague force that they take to be too big and terrifying to be overthrown by anything less than big government. They fear to let go of it, because letting go of it feels to them like "doing nothing," or accepting the status quo. It feels "unrighteous." To smash "oppression" feels "righteous" to them.
Ironically, both sides are trying to do things they see as good. Haidt calls this "righteousness," because both feel it with a quasi-religious zeal. The problem with this is that somebody who is against "righteousness" (collectivist or individualist) is, by deduction, an "unrighteous" person, a poisoner, an evil entity, a demon. It then becomes "righteous" to be hateful toward them; and paradoxically, to do anything to harm them, whether by honest means or not.
Haidt wants this kind of name-calling ended, for each side to see the other more virtuously, and for both to engage in a better kind of conversation -- that is, between Right and Left (centrists and moderates: as I say, I don't think he holds out special hope for the extremists in either camp.)
It's a nice idea. I don't see it as being likely. And while both sides are capable of demonizing the other, I see collectivists as most urgent in their need for a demon-enemy to hate. It's really their sine qua non, because without a demon-enemy, collectives are impossible to mobilize. (Individuals are easier, because they mobilize individually: each has his/her own interests and motives naturally, and these do not have to be coordinated and mobilized collectively.) That's why the Left multiplies extreme pejorative terms like "oppressor," "fascist," "Alt-Right," "Nazi," "patriarch," "homophobe," "Islamophobe," "cisgender," "white," "racist," "sexist," "ageist," "ablist," "xenophobe," and so on. The Right has some pejoratives for the Left (like "Communist," "authoritarian," and so on) but not nearly so many, and not so virulent.
So if the two sides are to learn to talk, then the first "climb-down" has to happen on the Left: and I don't think they can do that, without damaging their own ability to mobilize collectives, so I don't think they will.