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

[Cecelia]

Can it be averted? Yes, it can. But not by Democrats. Not after Mitch McConnell and his cronies refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing. To reward Republicans for their obstructionism during the Obama era, and the polarization that they are largely responsible for would only serve to encourage such behavior in the future. If the polarization is to end, Republicans have to make the move. We shouldn't give them what they want just because they're throwing a massive temper tantrum.

Will it be? I seriously doubt it. Not after Donald Trump.

[Angrboda]

You are making one seriously flawed assumption, Jorm.  Namely that the problem can "be solved."

Sometimes there is no going back.

It's not an assumption, it's a prediction and a hope. The best predictor of future behavior is past performance. Past behavior provides us examples of similar situations being solved and so it is reasonable to predict that if an appropriate set of actions were undertaken, collectively or individually, this too could be solved.

Not an assumption, Min. I agree with your pessimism, but pessimism alone isn't in any sense conclusive.

[Anomalocaris]

The past included a civil war.  The reconciliation resulted from the the understanding that the preferred path for one side is blocked by overwhelming military force proven able and willing to win.

[Angrboda]

The past included a civil war.  The reconciliation resulted from the the understanding that the preferred path for one side is blocked by overwhelming military force proven able and willing to win.

I strongly suspect that the reconciliation in the Civil War is not the only such example in world history, but in any case, you have the arrows reversed. The people who made concessions were those who had triumphed militarily and thus had no need to make concessions, not those who might have been cowed by their prior defeat. So you have the history here upside down.

[Anomalocaris]

The past included a civil war.  The reconciliation resulted from the the understanding that the preferred path for one side is blocked by overwhelming military force proven able and willing to win.

I strongly suspect that the reconciliation in the Civil War is not the only such example in world history, but in any case, you have the arrows reversed.  The people who made concessions were those who had triumphed militarily and thus had no need to make concessions, not those who might have been cowed by their prior defeat.  So you have the history here upside down.

No, the people who made the concession were the people who wanted to leave the union and keep slaves. They did not make the concession. The concession was taken from them. The fact that they then waged a century long political war to regain parts of what they conceded and appears to even recently be making progress that cheerier view of history had not allowed to be possible does not reverse the overall balance.

[Angrboda]

I strongly suspect that the reconciliation in the Civil War is not the only such example in world history, but in any case, you have the arrows reversed.  The people who made concessions were those who had triumphed militarily and thus had no need to make concessions, not those who might have been cowed by their prior defeat.  So you have the history here upside down.

No, the people who made the concession were the people who wanted to leave the union and keep slaves.  They did not make the concession.  The concession was taken from them.   The fact that they then waged a century long political war to regain parts of what they conceded and appears to even recently be making progress that cheerier view of history had not allowed to be possible does not reverse the overall balance.

No, you're wrong. The rapprochement was a result of a concession from the northern Republicans and a failure to secure legislation contrary to southern interests. Neither were a result of southern Democrats giving up anything. The intolerance between southern Democrats and northern Republicans was not ended by the Civil War, although the southern Democrats did give up slavery as a result of their loss of the war. The Civil War continued, just through, in Clausewitz' phrase, other means.

Gradually, though, as the Civil War generation passed from the scene, Democrats and Republicans learned to live with one another. They heeded the words of former House Speaker James Blaine, who in 1880 advised fellow Republicans to “fold up the bloody shirt” and shift the debate to economic issues.

It was not just time, however, that healed partisan wounds. Mutual toleration was established only after the issue of racial equality was removed from the political agenda. Two events were critical in this regard. The first was the infamous Compromise of 1877, which ended the 1876 presidential election dispute and elevated Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to the presidency in exchange for a promise to remove federal troops from the South. The pact effectively ended Reconstruction, which, by stripping away hard-fought federal protections for African Americans, allowed southern Democrats to undo basic democratic rights and consolidate single-party rule. The second event was the failure of Henry Cabot Lodge’s 1890 Federal Elections Bill, which would have allowed federal oversight of congressional elections to ensure the realization of black suffrage. The bill’s failure ended federal efforts to protect African American voting rights in the South, thereby ensuring their demise.

— "How Democracies Die," Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt.

[DeistPaladin]

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.  

Not only did Republicans tear this country apart on purpose for political gain, they continue to do so. Furthermore, we spent eight years under Obama trying to reach across the aisle and we saw what happened. The only solution is for the Republicans to stop tearing this country apart and that's not going to happen. 

The Republicans can no longer be bargained with or reasoned with. The only hope is that the Republicans can be utterly crushed by peaceful means. That's the cold, harsh reality we face. 

[Anomalocaris]

No, the people who made the concession were the people who wanted to leave the union and keep slaves.  They did not make the concession.  The concession was taken from them.   The fact that they then waged a century long political war to regain parts of what they conceded and appears to even recently be making progress that cheerier view of history had not allowed to be possible does not reverse the overall balance.

No, you're wrong.  The rapprochement was a result of a concession from the northern Republicans and a failure to secure legislation contrary to southern interests.  Neither were a result of southern Democrats giving up anything.  The intolerance between southern Democrats and northern Republicans was not ended by the Civil War, although the southern Democrats did give up slavery as a result of their loss of the war.   The Civil War continued, just through, in Clausewitz' phrase, other means.

Gradually, though, as the Civil War generation passed from the scene, Democrats and Republicans learned to live with one another. They heeded the words of former House Speaker James Blaine, who in 1880 advised fellow Republicans to “fold up the bloody shirt” and shift the debate to economic issues.

It was not just time, however, that healed partisan wounds. Mutual toleration was established only after the issue of racial equality was removed from the political agenda. Two events were critical in this regard. The first was the infamous Compromise of 1877, which ended the 1876 presidential election dispute and elevated Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to the presidency in exchange for a promise to remove federal troops from the South. The pact effectively ended Reconstruction, which, by stripping away hard-fought federal protections for African Americans, allowed southern Democrats to undo basic democratic rights and consolidate single-party rule. The second event was the failure of Henry Cabot Lodge’s 1890 Federal Elections Bill, which would have allowed federal oversight of congressional elections to ensure the realization of black suffrage. The bill’s failure ended federal efforts to protect African American voting rights in the South, thereby ensuring their demise.

— "How Democracies Die," Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt.

African American social status and voting rights may seem like the signature cause of the war between the states.   It was not.  It was a convenient rallying point and basis for rallying points.  The real factor whose importance led to acceptance of the war on both sides was ascension of northern industrial interests and a reversal of balance of political and economic power between north and south.  The war prevented the south from taking their toys and going somewhere else, and ensured they have no choice but to remain in a national polity in which northern industrial interests dominated.

The north won.  The fact that the north had to make periferal concessions to keep its winnings does not change the fact that it was a primarily industrial US that emerged and lasted down to this day, and the south got some carrots, knowing the north has the guns and will shoot.

Enlightened winner in conflicts of fundamental interest will disburse many carrots to the loser.   But Winners never won mainly by giving away carrots.  Winners in conflicts of fundamental interest always win by instilling the certainty created by experience that they can and will shoot, and will win when they shoot.  Carrots merely weaks the loser’s desire or resolve to periodically test and validate this certainty.

Durable winnings in fundamental conflict is usually a lot less than the winnings the winner appears to be able to take at the moment of victory. Winners have to give up much of the winnings in order to secure the vital part.  Winners who try to take it all usually crash and burn in short order.  That has always been a key fact in diplomacy, including the part that comes after the other means. This is actually being seen between 2016 and 2018 right here.

[Angrboda]

The north wanted to keep the south and free the slaves. They kept the south but did not free the slaves. And the reason was the concessions they gave.

Anyway, as pointed out, even if you are right in the specific case, that wouldn't mean you are right in the general case. That the north also gained something by those concessions, the concessions were necessary to accomplishing the goal of continued peace in the union, as even you admit. So your point appears somewhat Pyrrhic even if true, as the question is how are such stabilities achieved, and in this case the answer is concessions. That you feel the north had liberty in dispensing such concessions and that achieving their ends was facilitated by concessions does not rebut the point that concessions on the part of the north were a required element of the solution, not simply an optional bonus. So my overall point is abetted. If the north hadn't made those concessions, then peace may not have lasted, or, at minimum, the union would have become a union in name only.

[The Grand Nudger]

African American social status and voting rights may seem like the signature cause of the war between the states.   It was not.  It was a convenient rallying point and basis for rallying points.  The real factor whose importance led to acceptance of the war on both sides was ascension of northern industrial interests and a reversal of balance of political and economic power between north and south.  The war prevented the south from taking their toys and going somewhere else, and ensured they have no choice but to remain in a national polity in which northern industrial interests dominated.

I think that people forget..or..more accurately, are not educated in the fact, that pre-civil war the south was the center of cultural and intellectual supremacy for the US.   The north made the stuff, but the south defined who we were.

The north won.  The fact that the north had to make periferal concessions to keep its winnings does not change the fact that it was a primarily industrial US that emerged and lasted down to this day, and the south got some carrots, knowing the north has the guns and will shoot.

-which might be the cultural artifact that informs southerners to arm themselves to the fuckin teeth...eh?  Nobody loves guns as much as some historic loser.  

Enlightened winner in conflicts of fundamental interest will disburse many carrots to the loser.   But Winners never won mainly by giving away carrots.  Winners in conflicts of fundamental interest always win by instilling the certainty created by experience that they can and will shoot, and will win when they shoot.  Carrots merely weaks the loser’s desire or resolve to periodically test and validate this certainty.

-and then as now, the south desires the industrial base that the north once enjoyed.  We ended up getting it...stolen directly from the north, ironically, because we would work for wages closer to those slaves of yore....for all the good it's done us.

Durable winnings in fundamental conflict is usually a lot less than the winnings the winner appears to be able to take at the moment of victory. Winners have to give up much of the winnings in order to secure the vital part.  Winners who try to take it all usually crash and burn in short order.  That has always been a key fact in diplomacy, including the part that comes after the other means.   This is actually being seen between 2016 and 2018 right here.

Indeed.