Well, under our two party system you end up with two shopping carts full of positions, and you've got to buy one of them. Now neither shopping cart typically lines up perfectly with a hypothetical voter, but what do you do if both baskets contain things that you feel deeply about and oppose?

For instance where should a voter who cares deeply about abortion and capital punishment to go? The Democrats are not simply pro-choice, they demean and belittle his pro-life position. The Republicans find it inconceivable that he doesn't want to execute people guilty of the most heinous crimes, and he's dismissed as an unserious bleeding-heart. So maybe it's not that he's unexcited by the issues, but rather because of his strong inclinations he has no one to vote for.

It might be that low turnout is evidence that the current 'baskets' of the two parties are poorly aligned with the current electorate.

Alternatively, these issues are chosen for prominence specifically because they're divisive.

Note how none of the issues you've listed actually threaten status quo economic interests.

(You might think immigration does, in that tightening it up would increase competition for labor. But the issue would be backstopped from harm to actual people long before the economics would be affected)

The divisions are both extreme and bad. I don't want Nationalist isolationism anymore than I want unrelenting psudeo-socalist globalists who are Both clearly in the pocket of big business. No, the issues of social identity are not the real issues facing our country in my humble opinion.

"Apathy" is generally seen as a negative condition that can be cured, while the "just" distances itself from rationality which is generally seen as a positive quality.

I'm sure there's a lot of non-rational peer-group following behavior that causes people to not vote, but likewise with the people who do vote. So associating the lack of prevailing rationality to a specific choice is fallacious.