I understand the merits of studying and “sharing stories of the American people — rich and poor, black and white, single or married — and by telling how they live their lives, manage their home economies, generate their livelihoods, preserve their customs, habits and traditions, and go about their day-to-day activities.” I suspect that this would probably help understand individuals and groups identified as liberals, conservatives and centrists. I’m not at all sure that the studies would convince anyone of the merits of the others’ belief systems and ways of life. It might enhance understanding.

I suspect that liberals, conservatives and centrists could all find problems with what they conceive to be ill-conceived government programs and regulations; however, I also suspect that all three perspectives might find governmental programs and regulations that they might favor. There probably wouldn’t be agreement, about which programs and regulations might be considered good and which were considered ill conceived.

It isn’t clear to me how you would return decision-making to the “ruled” rather than “rulers.” I suppose one mechanism might be to reduce the rule making authority of bureaucrats and return it to elected officials, but I’m not at all sure that this is what you have in mind. Would “representatives of the electorate” be a better term than “ruled?” Who do you have in mind as “rulers?” Are these unelected officials, elected officials doing things exceeding their constitutional authority, or others?