Our polarization is not Republican vs. Democrat or Conservative vs. Liberal. It is Classical Liberal vs. Illiberal

From Bertrand Russell's America by Barry Feinberg.  Page 301.

While there was much to disagree with when dealing with Russell's ideas, he was both brilliant and exceptional in his capacity for lucid communication.  Emphasis added.

The principle of liberal democracy, which inspired the founders of the American Constitution, was that controversial questions should be decided by argument rather than by force. Liberals have always held that opinion should be formed by untrammeled debate, not by allowing only one side to be heard. Tyrannical governments, both ancient and modern, have taken the opposite view. For my part, I see no reason to abandon the liberal tradition in this matter. If I held power, I should not seek to prevent my opponents from being heard. I should seek to provide equal facilities for all opinions, and leave the outcome to the consequences of discussion and debate. Among the academic victims of German persecution in Poland there are, to my knowledge, some eminent logicians who are completely orthodox Catholics. I should do every-thing in my power to obtain academic positions for these men, in spite of the fact that their co-religionists do not return the compliment. 

The fundamental difference between the liberal and the illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard.  What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted, it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance is, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action. 

The liberal outlook is one which arose in England and Holland during the late seventeenth century, as a reaction against the wars of religion. These wars had raged with great fury for 13o years without producing the victory of either party. Each party felt an absolute certainty that it was in the right and that its victory was of the utmost importance to mankind. At the end, sensible men grew weary of the indecisive struggle and decided that both sides were mistaken in their dogmatic certainty. John Locke, who expressed the new point of view both in philosophy and in politics, wrote at the beginning of an era of growing toleration. He emphasised the fallibility of human judgements, and ushered in an era of progress which lasted until 1914. It is owing to the influence of Locke and his school that Catholics enjoy toleration in Protestant countries, and Protestants in Catholic countries. Where the controversies of the seventeenth century are concerned, men have more or less learnt the lesson of toleration, but in regard to the new controversies that have arisen since the end of the Great War, the wise maxims of the philosophers of liberalism have been forgotten. 

Indeed.  In the mainstream media, academia, and the Deep State, "the wise maxims of the philosophers of liberalism have been forgotten" and authoritarian ideological intolerance reigns supreme.