> traditional civil liberties (“freedom to” not “freedom from”)

There's no such thing as "freedom from", which is probably one of the main sticking points between these two groups. "Freedom from" is just a nice way to say "loss of agency due to oppressive external control".

I realize this may seem like a pointless semantic quibble, but I think at it's root it points out a philosophical divide, where-in I personally believe one side is divorced from reality.

There are reasonable discussions to be had about where on the sliding scale from totalitarian to libertarian that society should fall for the best results for everyone, but in no case is there ever a situation in which "freedom from" is a real thing. You are trading off "freedom" for "safety".

I believe you're trying to apply the US model to the rest of the West. For instance, I'm not sure there is a conflict between ecologically sound and innovation in most other western countries, or the same perception of "communism" as the Bogeyman: for most, it's just a failed experiment/ideology, not an imminent threat to their way of life like how some US discourses view it.