That's not a simple answer, it's simplistic. Politics is much more complicated than the dialectic Marx imagined. There are many classes, many interests, and none of them are pure - either self-interested or altruistic. As Greger said, "Politics is always a lot of things."
Too often, here, and in other discussions, people tend to take the simplistic way out - especially with labels. For anything you disagree with, it is "neoliberal"; for Ma Republican it is just plain "liberal". There is no amelioration, compromise, or subtlety. And it is not just y'all. The media, the parties, pundits, everywhere, people want to simplify things to "us" - the good guys - vs. "them" - whatever "us" is agin'. That's the basis for nationalism, racism, xenophobia, the "Wall", Republicans, Democrats, progressives, PETA, vegans, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I don't think that way (although, being human, of course I react that way).
Trump got elected (sort of), but it wasn't just "deplorables" that elected him (even Hillary didn't claim that). There were, I suppose, some decent (if misguided) people who joined that cabal. Virtually none of them were pure Trumpists, but enough of them had enough "reasons" that 60+ million or so probably cast votes that way, holding their nose or enthusiastically.
And that is why I started this thread, because neither position in "the Debate" was even close to right, but followed the same old, same old pigeonholing process that all such debates begin and end with. I have some very strong (mostly "progressive") views, but they are ameliorated by practicalities. I believe in environmentally stringent requirements - to combat climate change and so much more, but I like my creature comforts and recognize that others do as well. I want the things years of labor and privation have allowed me to accumulate, but worry about those that have less, or are hindered in attaining the same, so I believe and support "social justice" campaigns. I passionately believe Black Lives Matter, but also understand that we need police to "serve and protect" - those are not mutually exclusive sentiments. Corporations lift billions from poverty, but suppress them at the same time. Governments have a responsibility to everyone they serve, but they have economic, logistical, and even moral limitations. I spent three decades in uniform to protect the rights of people that I detest, and would do it again, in spite of them. I like guns, and understand others that do, but I'm all for gun restrictions that are practical, moral, and reasonable. I revere the Constitution, but I also appreciate its glaring defects and those of the aspirants who created it.
Anyone who limits their imagination to a dichotomy is missing a lot of the puzzle.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich