My point, Jordan, is that you are oversimplifying “the left” by characterizing it as “always trying to find a narrative to simplify and make the world manageable.” If that’s not a critique, it sure reads like one!
Your suggestion that the left favors the “complicated” frame seems far more apt. As I expect you know, that is the domain of experts (“elites”) in the Cynefin framework that you cite. It’s where we can identify multiple solutions rather than a single “best practice.” So though it’s a domain where cause and effect can be readily understood, and thus there is some good understanding of right and wrong approaches, it’s also one where there is room for informed debate about how to act. That contrasts with the simple sloganeering and “unserious” policy proposals one often sees on the right. “Let the market decide.” “All regulations are bad.” “Government is the problem.” “The US should always balance its budget because that’s what you and I have to do.” “More individual freedom and choice is always best.” “Islam is evil.” Etc.
As for the “complex” realm — the one where most of our major crises reside — I think you’re right to say that neither “Church” has evolved to operate well in that domain. And perhaps the success of the Red Insurgency has come from its use of a rapidly iterating “probe-sense-respond” cycle — the Cynefin protocol for determining action in the face of complexity, when cause and effect can only be understood in retrospect, and expertise is relatively useless. I question, however, if this is the result of something strategic rather than a combination of luck and instinct. In particular, the Insurgency’s ability to accurately sense what is true beyond their base seems highly stunted. The base was enough to win a major victory, but I don’t think it can win the war. At least, I sincerely hope it can’t.