@epbutler Have you read any of the esoteric "New Right" fascist sorts lately? They sound and write like me. That pissed me off to no end until I realized that the tool I'm wielding and the tool they're wielding is identical. It isn't the analysis that's wrong, it's the non sequitur (racialized, hateful) conclusion they reach at the end of it.
In convincing someone, it makes more sense to grant that their observations are correct. For instance, take immigration. Illegal immigration deflates wages in a capitalist system. Immigrants are used as a tool against unions and a way to undermine worker protections. Both the Right wing and the Left wing can easily agree to this; the only difference is that a right-winger ends up blaming a mutual victim (the immigrant) rather than the folks profiting from the whole scenario. Altering the ultimate conclusion is a lot easier, I think, than trying to convince say, a liberal who supported Clinton that liberal/free-trade policies are to blame for the destruction of the Mexican economy as well as undermining American wages and, most importantly, exacerbating and creating easily exploitable racial tensions.
The powerful profit so much from racial tensions and the republican/liberal divide that I really suspect they cynically encourage it, particularly in the media (FOX vs. MSNBC, etc.). Inculcating fear of 50% of the population in the other 50% is the old patriarchal game (man vs. woman), and it is the largest obstacle to class consciousness and the greatest weapon they've got. What we're trying to do for gender (complicating male vs. female) and the gods (exploding the God/Goddess dichotomy) we should also be doing for political understandings, always remembering that the ultimate enemy is profiting from our divisions.