As an outsider, I always consider the American two party system to represent the right and the extreme right.

I take your point, but that doesn't mean that I find the left to be much more appealing than the right, at least in terms of its ability to make worthwhile systemic change. The end result is the same. The American "right" and "left" are obsessed with their own flavor of identity politics, and that is what defines them over their approaches to government and economics. America's "left" is still seemingly anti-socialist.

I don't think that people should go out of their way to offend others, and the left's propensity for tolerance is somewhat better than that of the right's, but the postmodern social construct that is "identity," at least in American culture, inspires tribalism and disunity. The right, being so opposed to postmodernism, itself, has unwittingly adopted the construct of identity, regardless.

And I don't wish to invalidate others' experiences as members of identity tribes, especially those who have been (or still are) wrongfully subjugated by coercive powers in our society that may even force an identity construct upon them, but generally, feuding between opposing identity tribes seems to me to be a distraction from making a systemic shift toward a better society. Identities don't care about social welfare, though they may claim to; they care about ensuring they remain or grow stronger as modes of personal validation or actualization. They struggle against each other, as if they are, themselves, organisms fighting for survival.

People aren't defined by the subscription list of their identities (including "left" and "right"). We are not the final distillation of social performance. We just are—a cross section of experience, carried from one moment to the next.