I've asked that question. And boy did they answer: 1) Trump shouldn't have power. It's fine to give power to someone who will use it justly. Trump is an illegitimate president, and he doesn't deserve to have that power. 2) There's inherent racism in the system, and we need to progress beyond that. Policies that Democrats favor gets us there. Policies Republicans favor are just regressive.I have the same arguments with my liberal friends and family all the time. I ask them, if the government is terrible, police are brutal, Trump is a facist, and white supremacy is systemic, why would you want to continue to prop up that system and give it more power?
They never have an answer.
The problem is, both sides see things differently, interpret things differently and apply different moral standards as they evaluate their interpretation of the world around them. It's the different moral standards that make bat **** crazy leftist **********s say stupid **** like, "Republicans hate kids because they won't implement 'common sense gun controls." And I suppose an equivalent on the other side might be something like "Democrats just want to murder babies." And Libertarians do the same thing, "why do you hate freedom?"
Republicans don't hate kids. They just don't believe that "common sense gun controls" will solve the problem. Democrats don't just want to murder babies, they don't believe that is murder. And people who want any government don't hate freedom, they place the balance point in the linear region between freedom and safety. All of those things are arguable in terms of what is the optimal place where along the left right line policy should be. But making statements like that is faulty logic because you're assigning your own moral reasoning to other people who don't share that moral understanding.
It seems to me the biggest divide is the moral foundation of fairness. Both sides have that. But both place an emphasis on different aspects of fairness. One is equality, the other is reciprocity. Progressives think equality of outcome is most important. Conservatives think reciprocity is most important. What I mean by reciprocity fairness is more along the lines of you reap what you sow, you deserve no more than what you earn, you do what you promise, you get what you give. So, take welfare. If you believe in equalizing outcomes you'll be all in favor of welfare. Conservatives don't think you should get something for nothing. And especially it's not reciprocally fair if I have to pay from the resources I've earned, to equalize someone else's outcome, who's done nothing to earn it.
There's no way to compromise in a way that satisfies both sides' moral foundations if neither side tries to understand the priorities of the other side. So both sides fight for the big-stick-o-power so that they can implement policies that satisfy their own moral foundations. A compromise, if both sides see the other sides's moral needs, would be a social safety net with workfare that tries to respect the sensibilities inherent to each side's moral priorities. Neither side will get theirs fulfilled completely.