A situation of collectivism or individualism has negative or positive consequences for society, yes. But my point is that most people relate to the struggle between collectivism and individualism in a very tribal in-group out-group way, thinking of the other as bad evil people and such.
It's easy to call right wingers racist if they don't want the government to actively stamp out racism with programs or rhetoric, but they have a belief that the government shouldn't take any role in being the guide of society in any way.
It's easy to call left wingers anti-freedom because they advocate for a non-optional role as a citizen with economic privileges and responsibilities under a specific government regime, but they want to shape society in a practical way and provide social safety nets that help people.
The struggle of We vs. I is a question that will be debated until the end of time, but we act as if those who have chosen one or the other are bad people, when it's simply not the case. The major political choices of the world are all logical in the broad view and choosing one or the other is not a moral failing. The truly negative manifestation of politics (right wing Fascism and Communist totalitarianism) come from extremist versions of the choices between individualism and collectivism, while mild implementations of either would not be inherently immoral.
Perhaps it is logical to demonize extremist implementations of either right or left... but we act on the left as if right is immoral, and vice versa, and that's just tribal squabbling over a simple question of collectivism vs individualism.
