Okay, I'm going to breeze by that point about undermining the Constitution, because as interesting as it may be to discuss, it's not on topic for this thread. Though I would be happy to join you in a discussion about it, if you'd care to start one.
Back to the topic at hand (or closer to it). Why can't the Republicans meet the Democrats in the middle on some of our social issues? I think we can all agree that the growing number of homeless in this country isn't a good thing. I think we can all agree that in lieu of good parenting (which is subjective and impossible to enforce) a decent standard of education is the best way to start a young American Citizen on the path to success. And I think we can all agree that a for-profit healthcare system that refuses service to people who can't pay, or refuses to cover them with insurance when they have a pre-existing condition, is not doing our society any great service. So why don't the Republicans seem interested in those things? Surely a more educated and healthier population would be to the betterment of our society? And we are, after all, the wealthiest nation in the world. If any country could afford it, it's ours. Yet others seem to manage it.
The answer is really that right wing types don't want the 'others' to move up the ranks of the pyramid of society. There is this idea that the cream rises to the top and is therefore worthy of their station in life. Being a capitalist society, this worth is often tied to net worth. The richest taking their place at the top is seen as morally just. The wealthiest are at the top, the monied interests are the 2nd tier. The middle class in the 3rd and the working class and poor are at the bottom. It is seen as useful for the middle and the monied groups to have mobility and the opportunity or at least, the illusion of opportunity, to move up. The monied interests can join the wealthy. The middle can become the monied interests and so on.
The problem comes from the bottom. The bottom tier in our pyramid scheme often lacks the resources or is denied access to the tools that could really help them in their push upwards into the middle class. Things that other nations provide such as subsidized higher education, medical care, subsidized child care, etc. are all tools of societal improvement but they also engender upward mobility.
You hear lots of arguments against this, about how it's not really fair because some people have to pay full rip for their college and don't get handouts. It doesn't make things equal that some people have to pay for healthcare while others get it free or cheap. It's not fair because the wealthiest have to pay extra taxes for the lowest class to move up.
But in each argument, we see that this supposed reverence for a meritocracy is nothing but a farce.
The wealthiest don't wish to deny subsidized education because everyone should have to pay their own way and be responsible. They had access to the resources that made that higher education possible and giving them out to everyone seemingly takes away that thing they have, which many others do not.
Free healthcare isn't actually free and it shouldn't be, because its expensive and an oppressive tax burden, is the argument most frequently floated. But that appeal towards a sense of fair play and "equality" is false, because the monied classes not only have the wealth to pay for care (or have it provided to them at no cost like a certain US President who caught Covid-19 and got treatments that most people could never afford) but benefit from the inequality. See, they tend to hold the reins of these insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and hospital/medical providers and it benefits them to keep prices high. Socialized health insurance would likely come with price controls and the death of insurance from lack of need.
The wealthiest don't like paying the taxes for social programs to move the lower classes up, not because its somehow unfair. I would contend it is entirely fair for a group who controls 90% of the wealth in a nation, to pay the vast majority of the taxes.
The simple fact is that the whole thing is circular reasoning.
'Wealth and power deserve to be on top.'
Why?
'Because wealth and power are moral'
How do you know?
'Because the wealthiest and powerful have moved to the top.'
It's Ayn Rand's erect nipple erotic fantasy...you know, other than her own collection of social security and medicare benefits.