Why is there constant division in the country between left and right? IMHO it is fundamentally about positivity vs. negativity.
Liberals and democrats are people who wake up negative, asking "What's wrong with this situation?" They want to complain about everything, tear it all down to nothing, and replace it with some centrally planned, fake monstrosity in the name of "PROGRESS";
...while conservatives and republicans wake up positive, asking "What's good about this situation?" They want to thank God for how great everything is and to CONSERVE the good things we have built from the grass roots up, as humans on an abundantly rich planet and as Americans in an abundantly rich country.
We're of two fundamentally different mental paradigms: one focused on being negative, hateful, divisive, hopeless and miserable; the other focused on being positive, loving, unifying, hopeful and happy.
It's nothing to do with race, religion, gender, etc. The just left wants to "progress" from what they feel is mostly a bad deal; while the right wants to "conserve" what we see as already a fairly good deal.
The Core Of Political Division
You are not addressing the core, but a level far up the chain. It is in the CORE where the division is supported, and why that division works so well (because it abuses a fundamental Truth).
I attempt to address the core using physics because it is the easiest way I've found to universally illustrate it.
.
Physics
In physics (a mathematical model that attempts to methodically use "what is" to our benefit), we use different models for different scopes. These different models do not work together very well. You can kinda merge them, but it took a LOT of effort to do so, it only works theoretically, that theory doesn't work completely, and it certainly does not work functionally.
However, in practice, these two different scopes of physics work really well as long as you keep the different theories in their proper domain. That is, I suggest, because the two different scopes both address the SAME Truth, just in different scopes.
Just for context, in physics we call these different theories Newtonian physics and Quantum physics (the two domains). You can call "Newtonian" "Classical" instead if you want, but everyone understands what you mean, and those different scopes of measurement and usefulness (quantum v. classical mathematical models) are functionally incompatible.
.
Sociology (Politics)
In the case of the "Right" v. the "Left," they use those same different scopes in the exact same way; both in engineering (physics) and in sociology (politics).
In the Newtonian world, everything is separate, individual. One object interacts with another object, and the interaction between those different entities is fundamental.
In the Quantum world, everything is connected; we are all One (the wave function of the entire universe is entangled). The Oneness of all things is complete and the Truth.
In the Right, they focus on the Sovereignty of the individual. Now, that is not a complete statement of difference, and there is some bleeding of those different scopes between Right and Left in their concepts, but for the most part, and currently, that is a mostly true distinction.
In the Left, they focus on the needs of the All. The Oneness of everyone (in society). Again, there is some bleeding of those concepts, but currently, that is a mostly true distinction.
.
There Are Different Scopes, But Only One Truth
Applying to all similar applications (physics or sociology), both scopes of the Oneness and the Individual are the Fundamental Truth. In physics many people say, "Quantum is fundamental, and Newtonian is an emergent property, thus 'Quantum' is more important." I suggest that is completely false. The Quantum, the Newtonian, AND the way they work together is what is fundamental. In other words, all scopes are equally fundamental, and the way they work together IS the whole Truth. In other words, a world without "Newton" is not a complete world. A world without "quantum" can't even exist. EVERYTHING about both scopes, and their interactions is the whole Truth.
Similarly, in sociology (or if you prefer, applied sociology, AKA politics), both the Oneness of the needs of society and the needs of the Individual are ALL fundamental. Similarly, working together on both scopes are also fundamental.
Now, in a way, at least in physics, quantum IS "more" fundamental. However, you can't have a Newtonian world without the quantum, it is meaningless. Even if we engineer a quantum system, until it hits the Newtonian world, the quantum is meaningless. Indeed, the concept of "measurement" is purely Newtonian (or "Classical"). So operationally, the Classical world is actually fundamental, even if from a certain perspective, you could make the case that quantum is 'more' fundamental.
.
The Sovereignty Of The Individual Is "More" Fundamental By Necessity.
In the case of sociology however, at least in the case of laws (what we currently mean by "applied politics"), it is quite clear that any law that subverts the Individual the "Right Scope" of society, will (attempt to) DESTROY the individual for the purposes of the One. THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.
Yet there are reasons to appreciate the One in society. So how do we rectify that?
The problem is a lack of appreciation of what "Individual Sovereignty" means, and how we have constructed a "legal system" (a system of false limits) that has subverted that fundamental part of the Truth. In other words, what we mean by "law" is the problem. What that means is a much bigger discussion, and I have gone too far already in this post.