Andrew, reread the dozen or two dozen issues that you find important, and how you have characterized them. Your side approaches issues with the conviction that only your side stands on moral ground, only you have good intentions, only your solutions will produce the desired results, with no unintended consequences or new problems that make things worse. And by definition, the opposition to your side must therefore stand on immoral ground, with bad intentions, and dysfunctional proposals.
Read your own words again. Your only stated goal is to pass the Progressive agenda, not to find sound solutions that both sides can support. You want greater power for Democrats, so the Progressive agenda can be forced through, like the ACA was. Progressive Utopia — what could possibly go wrong?
That is how Democrats approached government in 2009–2010, when they had complete and unopposable control of both chambers of Congress. Republican views were virtually cleansed from the Congress. For the next two years, Senator Reid used his control of the senate majority to completely block any bill passed up from the House from reaching the Senate floor. For the last three years, Reid has used control of the Senate minority to filibuster any bill Democrats oppose.
Now be honest, Andrew, why in God’s name should Republicans negotiate in good faith with people who hold them in such contempt? Yes indeed, the two sides can no longer work together. But if Democrats think that is entirely the fault of “obstructionist Republicans”, which all I ever hear or read from them, then the divide will only worsen. Trumpism is the natural result, and win or lose, President Trump or President Clinton will face an increasingly divided country and government.
But of course, it’s all Bush’s fault, right?