I definitely agree on the first part, and would enjoy healthy bipartisan discussions, but I also think that "neutral( )politics" is an oxymoron. What I mean is

I definitely agree on the first part, and would enjoy healthy bipartisan discussions, but I also think that "neutral( )politics" is an oxymoron. What I mean is that I think the problem currently is as simple (but complex to fix) as people disagreeing over reality. When I have coherent political discussions with friends of other leanings, we always see the others standpoint, but it ALWAYS boils down to simple disagreement on cost/values. Let's take wealth inequality: I don't see the utility in the 0.X% population holding YY% of the wealth (instead of YY/2), and think it hurts the economy by stagnating monetary rotation on the market. My more conservative capitalist friend also doesn't see a particular added utility by it, but disagrees about it having the cost I describe, and distributing wealth that way would then be invasive. We won't get further than that barring a real world experiment, but whether it's healthcare, schooling, infrastructure, etc, it always after 5 minutes or 2 hours boils down to a disagreement on a premise, core values or simply something unprovable (reasonably). The problem I see publicly (social media etc) is people ignoring reality/facts/common sense in favor of tribalism. At that point there can be no discussion. I venture into r/neutralpolitics at times too, but I've never once read something fruitful there. It's either entirely noncommittal, or legitimizes both standpoints on an issue that shouldn't reasonably have two sides (whether that's liberal or conservative).