Can the polarization between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. be reversed?

[Angrboda]

I must say that I'm not totally surprised by the responses to my OP. The replies have, for the most part, been expressions of anger directed toward Republicans, and attempts to assign blame for the mess we're in. Reacting with outrage and denials of responsibility is escalation, it makes the problem worse, not better. The question is whether we can de-escalate and how, if it's even possible. To respond to Brian specifically, yes, it's possible that they started it, but that answer doesn't resolve anything, whether it's in the back seat of the family car or on the world stage. As it has been said, an eye for an eye simply leaves the whole world blind. In Muslim areas of the world they have a similar problem, leading to repeated 'retaliatory' killings for things that the other side is presumed to have started. It doesn't stop the killing, it simply justifies its continuation. Assigning blame will not de-escalate the crisis and will not lead to less polarization rather than more.

I'm as fascinated as anyone else about the history and how we got to where we are and being mad at Republicans, but none of this addresses the problem. If polarization is bad and leads to a crisis through escalation and synergistic processes, how do we reverse that polarization and end that spiral? Can we even do so? I like to think that we can because people have done it in the past, but they were not necessarily acting with the intention of reversing the polarization and intolerance. So, perhaps, the question becomes, what consciously engaged strategies can lead to less polarization? Assigning blame and tarring and feathering Republicans isn't it. Well, if not, then what is?

As a matter of information, the book gives the example of the polarization between northern Republicans and formerly slave holding southern Democrats in the era of reconstruction after the civil war. That polarization and escalation was resolved by northern Republicans backing off of demands that society and government in the south take positive steps to recognize and protect the rights of the newly freed blacks in the south, effectively perpetuating the status quo of racism in the south. It was this "Devil's pact" which lead to reconciliation between northern Republicans and southern Democrats and resolved the ongoing crisis of incivility and intolerance between the two parties. Is such a "Devil's pact" possible in today's society? Would we be wrong in embracing such a deal? Would we be even capable of setting aside liberal values and demands for absolute and unqualified recognition of them, and accede to the interests of the right? One obvious area where this reconciliation could occur is if Democrats and liberals were more accommodating of Republican aims regarding immigration. If building that wall, literally or figuratively, will lead to peace, democracy, and prosperity inside the U.S., is that not a sufficiently valuable goal to justify setting aside, or, at least, compromising on liberal values and beliefs about the rights and interests of immigrants and refugees?