If he's correct, and I think he is, then "compromise" is pretty much impossible and our politics will continue to be a struggle to acquire the power to impose one side's will on the other side.
Here's part of his column:
How are we to bridge the gap between those who believe men can become women and women can become men and those who don't believe this? Between those who believe men menstruate and those who believe only women menstruate?Prager goes on to lament how our political conversation has been corrupted by the tactic of simplistically smearing the other side. An example is how one who is a conservative Christian is reflexively labeled a "Christian nationalist." No definition of exactly what a Christian nationalist might be is ever provided, but we're to understand that whatever it is, it must be bad.
How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe "colorblind" is a racist notion and those who believe "colorblind" is the antidote to racism?
How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe Israel is the villain and Hamas is the victim and those who believe Israel is the victim and Hamas, which openly states its dedication to annihilating Israel and its Jewish inhabitants, is the villain, morally indistinguishable from the Nazis?
How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe young children should be brought to drag queen shows and those who believe this sexualization -- and sexual confusion -- of children is morally detestable?
How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe reducing the number of police will reduce violent crime and those who believe reducing the number of police will increase violent crime?
How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe in suppressing free speech if they deem any given speech "hateful" or "misinformation" and those who believe in free speech?
Every one of these positions is mutually contradictory. And this is just a partial list.
Other examples include calling those who disagree with one on various social issues "fascists," "racists," or "homophobes," etc.
As we read about how people are comporting themselves in this election season it'd be helpful, perhaps, to keep in mind this general rule: The rationality of one's opinions is inversely proportional to the amount of name-calling they indulge in and the vehemence with which they indulge it.
I commend Prager's column to you. It's very good.