Such Polarization, Much ignorance!
Why do many politically active Americans tend to talk in terms of polarizing disagreement instead of looking for common solutions?
The one solution that is absolutely viable, despite its constant rejection in favor of the necessary evil that is government, is the abolition of government. As people are forced into public schools and government intervenes in the creation process of what is legally, but not necessarily morally, acceptable in the realm of education, more and more people are being coercively indoctrinated in schools not directly under government control.
People are indoctrinated into believing that government is a requirement for peaceful society; that government's existence is necessary. Therefore, people reject the notion of living without government and naturally fight for what they wholeheartedly believe will be the best solution for their cause while working within the confines drawn out for them by the government beneath varying terms of opposing political party rule.. This is folly as fighting for any cause through the use of government always equates to the destruction of the liberties of those not in agreement with the majority on an issue.
Compromise is seen as a means to give everyone, or at least the majority of everyone, what they want. That is false compromise as it is based on the use of coercion to gain acceptance. "Give me your money and I won't shoot you", is what that amounts too! Real compromise doesn't include coercive measures ever! Coercion is what government is all about. The compromise is always that one side will promise to concede a little so that when they are not in power the other side will be that much more merciful. The polarizing effects of disagreement in American politics are due entirely to the handling of the issues by the entity responsible for affecting a change per the requests of the voters; the government itself.
Because government claims absolute jurisdiction, no one may escape the system thus working within it to find peaceful solutions seems best. That's akin to slaves working a cotton field to be freer than the house slaves or the slaves working the cotton gins. So long as economics is so poorly understood by the slaves no slave will be allowed or able to earn any true reform concerning his enslavement. When economics is well understood it is a matter of pride and few men will admit a lifetime of error when their personal pride is at stake! That is why it is up to the slaves to think for themselves. To accept their current plight while seeking an ally with the neglect the system has to offer as a means to survive. Immediate revolt will do them little good if they do not understand the responsibilities of free men.
That is the same with government and the people. We are the slaves and the political classes are the masters. The only difference here is that we choose which of us will be the new masters ever few years. (Many will suggest that the international bankers are the masters over the governments but that is folly too. The international bankers have no control except that which is chartered to them by the authority of government. Until the bankers directly control the armies of the nations they subjugate with economic terrorism then they will always answer to the governments. Yes, bankers’ money does control the pay of the soldiers but governments could easily issue their own money if they truly desired to. Keeping centralized banking practices is not but keeping another player in the game to distract you and me with.)
We have the absolute power but do not understand it as a society. We bicker about how to best direct the trillions of stolen dollars we call taxes but never stop to think that we should just end the theft altogether. "But what about roads, schools, education, military, and so on?!"
These are minor distractions that those who successfully make it into public office do not wish the status quo's understanding on to change. A market place free to create without government intervention will provide these things because people find them valuable. The problem is not that those with initiate to provide these services will charge what they believe they can get for their endeavors but the lack of critical thinking on behalf of those who do not take the initiative to even consider half of the thought those with initiative put into providing such services. In other words those who do a lot of thinking will be pulled down by those who do too little thinking.
That is why government is praised and hated in the same breath as a necessary evil. Ultimately the polarizing disagreement in American politics is due to the amount of time each individual in each group spends thinking. Those who debate within the confines government gives them to think do more than those who blindly follow. But that is not enough.
Think a little more and the clarity of the problem is revealed. The problem itself is the existence of government that is completely involuntary. If self governance of the individual is not allowed then how can real compromise be made between people subjected to a rule of law that dictates behavior under threat of violence and death? Said differently, if self ownership is not recognized then how are real compromises to be struck?
The issues debated by those working within the confines set forth by government are all about how brutally their masters treat one another instead of why there should be masters in the first place.
Until we ask why there should be masters in the first place give me a break on the morality of what is best done with the money stolen from me at gun point; the money you call taxes! And please stop complaining about how stupid others are who disagree with you when you, as a government supporter, are promoting the initiation of violent violations of consent to be interacted with at all. Perhaps if people understood the ramifications of their actions in relation to how others are affected, then maybe people wouldn’t be so short tempered and polarizing all the time.
After all, if the entire political arena boils down to two things. Violate the consent of others or don’t. Of those who choose the options are to violate the consent of others a little as you see fit or to violate the consent of others a whole lot as you see fit.