I'd say this...

I think Republicans used to have ideas. They used to run on them. By ideas I mean 'ways to improve things'. That sort of thing is harder to sell though than fear or especially harder than shooting holes in someone else's ideas...

Democrats though started running and more importantly, winning on identity politics. That's not an idea per se... 'Everyone' is a minority of some sort except healthy, hetero white males who aren't veterans. Republicans have been slow to adapt to this, even though they realize that running on REAL ideas. And no, I don't even see the ACA as an 'idea'. Its more of a way to buy votes (free stuff paid for by 'the rich' meaning anyone who pays taxes/is responsible for the deficit since we almost never really tax the wealthy... ) with the IDEAS simply being ways to 'sell' it. I mean seriously, at its heart the ACA is simply giving people who used to avoid primary care unless it was the ER a way to go broke annually with a 6k+ OOP as opposed to 20k once every 5 years. They don't really have any more access to primary care... we've just shifted the burden to others. Some who used it now don't... Some who didn't still don't.... some who didn't, now do. The problem is, we STILL haven't really increased the amount of care available. Rearranging deck chairs.... and ALL of the 'cost savings' that don't involve rationing of care ALL REQUIRE that people take better care of themselves today to avoid bigger issues in the future... and that is how we reduce costs.

Even Trump ran on the idea that intrusive government, unfair trade agreements - putting the world first while the rest of the world put themselves first, all sorts of 'ideas'. not ideas in the traditional sense... but ideas.... more similar in my mind to the ACA as an 'idea', just in the opposite direction. LESS 'free stuff' for non-Americans.

SO yes, they both do it and its the evil vs stupid party (not my words but close enough)...

My BIGGEST issue is that from the R side, I've seen an actual movement towards some real ideas (beginning with Perot and also Paul) get hijacked by a splinter portion of the right and effectively labeled as such by the left such that it dies... meanwhile a similar split in the left has gained strength due to what SEEMS as though the left at least somewhat embraces the 'socialist' label being given to progressivism while the right did not embrace the 'racist' label given to it by the left.

This is the issue and iMO why it seems more one sided to the right. The left has a very clear ace up its sleeve that cuts off lots of dialogue. That's not their fault. It is what it is. The 'regular' right doesn't have an effective answer to labels of racism/sexism/homophobia etc etc... I have black/gay/female/trans friends.... while the left has a perfectly acceptable one (to them) to charges of socialism... You're right! So what? They don't feel a huge need to distance themselves from the charge like the right does. The problem for me with this is that one can certainly disagree with leftist policies but not support racist ones... so where does that person go for representation?? All of these 'isms' actually GROW despite having no real support because the left has effectively given those on the right few options.