Two sides...

One side sees government as the tool to effect social change. To education, to heal, to eliminate poverty - to improve the human condition.

One side sees government as a tool to protect our rights to live and act freely - be that from others, from corporations or from foreign influence/action.

An argument can be made (and it is) that government can do both, but it is a failure to understand the means by which government can to the former - it must have the authority to take from some people to give it to others: It must pay teachers and fund schools, it must pay doctors and nurses and fund hospitals, it must pay for food and housing and it must prevent actions by individuals that hurt or harm others. That authority, once given, is seldom restricted or recalled. A phone tax intended to support efforts in World War One was finally repealed in the 1980s. If you demand government teach, you either specify exactly what it teaches or accept that it will teach what benefits the teachers. You lose control of the tool of change.

Easiest example: government controlled by one party tells teachers to tell students that gay marriage is ok. Then government is controlled by another party that tells teachers to tell students that gay marriage is bad.

We get students of different ages told different things - each objectionable by one side or the other. Both arguing about what was taught but neither arguing that the teachers shouldn't be teaching EITHER side.

You can not give government the power to impose "good" on people without fundamentally destroying both liberty and good government.

So, while one side sees effecting social change as a morally good thing, the other side sees it as morally corrupt liberty destroying.

One side is evil. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.