I don’t think that the theory is meant to hold true across individuals or betweeen societies/cultures, but rather meant to explain differences. I suppose that is not my point, which is, what views do you hold if you disagree?

I don't have a model which is supposed to describe how society works. I do believe that individuals can share some views and beliefs on some matters and have different views and opinions on some other matters.

Trying to divide society into categories and assigning strong views, beliefs and interests to each category and explaining everything trough that lens might be easy and comfortable but not right.

I appreciate your candor. Your points seem simple and are yet worth noting. I appreciate the way you framed and worded your reply, as it takes a difficult topic and explains the issues without resorting to generalities. It gives more light than heat, to invert the common expectation.

The current mode of public discourse incentivizes reactionary rhetorical swipes at the expense of debate itself. Wedge issues perform an alarming amount of work under these conditions, and once constructed, they continue working even in the absence of effort by their originator.

Do you have any recommendations for readings on topics that seem relevant to your views or points made in this discussion, or that are perhaps adjacent?

The Marxists do take alot from Schmitt, as is Schmitt taking another angle to the same response as the Marxists to the same "problem", towards Liberalism.