Your analysis is not useful because no such entities as "the left" and "the right" exist. It's not remotely helpful to lump complex and differentiated phenomena into binary categories so you can attach simple motivations and behaviors to them.
> It's not remotely helpful to lump complex and differentiated phenomena into binary categories so you can attach simple motivations and behaviors to them
It's not "helpful", to the general populace, but it is extremely useful to existing power structures to divide the populace up along various dimensions and then "attach (via sophisticated media narratives) simple motivations and behaviors to them". Advertising and marketing does just this, and it works quite well, and is there not plentiful evidence that at least suggests the same may be happening to some degree in the realm of politics?
When people hear one story, they tend to ask: is this true? When they hear two stories, they tend to ask: which one of these is true? Isn’t this a neat trick? Maybe our whole world is built on it. Any point on which both poles concur is shared story: “uncontroversial, bipartisan consensus.”
Shared story has root privilege. It has no natural enemies and is automatically true. Injecting ideas into it is nontrivial and hence lucrative; this profession is called “PR.”
There is no reason to assume that either pole of the spectrum of conflict, or the middle, or the shared story, is any closer to reality than the single pole of the one-story state.
Dividing the narrative has not answered the old question: is any of this true? Rather, it has… dodged it. Stagecraft!
This is even better than supposing that, since we fought Hitler and Hitler was bad, we must be good. These very basic fallacies, or psychological exploits, are deeply embedded in our political operating systems. Like bugs in code, they are invisible until you look straight at them. Then they are obvious.
