One of the more interesting paradoxes of the left/right ideological divide is how each side regards the role of self vs community.
The right presents a framework of ideals, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes one ought to embrace in order to be a part of a decent, caring, successful society, and then offers that society's members the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want. The thought is that each member is likely to individually and independently come to the same conclusion, that is in their own best interest to do right by others as they would wish to be done right themselves (i.e. the Golden rule), and that freedom comes with the responsibility to be a good person and make the best choices one can with the skills and tools they posses to make a good life for themselves and their family.
Most importantly, there is a belief in critical thinking and a tolerance of dissenting opinions. Folks on the right may not always agree with each other, but are are some of the most tolerant when it comes to setting aside differences to work, play, eat, or otherwise spend time together. So there may be significant agreement with the broad strokes of what makes for a successful society, but a strong desire to protect individual liberties and rights to make one's own choices within those mutually-agreed-upon strokes.
The left presents a framework of ideals, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that suggest you don't matter as an individual. You belong to a group, or groups, and those groups exist in a hierarchy of power and oppression, and you have no way to alter your place in society. If you are a white person, you are an oppressor. If you are anything else, you are a victim of oppression and it is not your fault that you cannot succeed at having a good life. Honestly, you should not even bother trying. The best you can hope for is to force society to take freedom and opportunity away from oppressors and hand you a simulacrum of the success you cannot earn on your own, e.g. a position at an elite college, a student loan, a mortgage, affirmative action job placement, minimum wages, rent control, student loan debt forgiveness, and welfare, to name a few.
And of course, you can have any opinion about all of this you like, as long as it is in agreement with the left's framework of ideals, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. Unlike the right, the left likes to change the definitions of words, sometimes to mean the precise opposite of what they used to mean, the way 'literally' now can literally mean 'figuratively'. In this case, 'tolerance' actually means 'intolerance', and saying the wrong thing can mean the loss of your job, your access to social media, your circle of friends, your bank account, or your wife and children. So there may be strong lip service to diversity of the individual, but in the end no single person's opinion's or desires ever matter.
Now, really; which of these worlds would you rather live in?
I know, some readers might say my descriptions are biased and monolithic, and sure enough, there are extremes and exceptions. On the right, there are religious groups that wish to restrict what you think and do (or do not do), and on the left there are moderates who have not been paying attention to their party's more recent actions and still think they are the party of JFK, Dr. King, and the Peace Corps.
And most Americans are truly libertarians but don't realize it; they would prefer government was smaller and wasted less money; they just don't know what to do to make that happen.
The answer is simple to say if not implement: Recall Them All and Do Not Re-Elect. Every new person in office is someone who does not owe government favors to special interests. Throwing all the bums out at once would be a refreshing blank slate. Vote for someone new this fall.