Political polarization is one of the key topics in politics and society today, and there seems to be a consensus on the opinion that political polarization is something bad. The ability to “reduce political polarization” is often called a key requirement for a presidential candidate. But even though I can very much understand this desire for social peace, I am not sure if this is something one can, or should, hope for.
When people think about “reducing political polarization” they often imagine the, in their view, absolutely crazy, ignorant or brainwashed other political camp to “come to a clear mind” and more or less stop fighting for what they believe in. But obviously they will not, actually who would? That’s pretty much the point of believing in something.
From my experiences, political polarization is caused by very different philosophies across society. And different philosophies are not really something one can weigh against each other. And I also don't see why we should have something like a “philosophical synchronization”, except for that fact that people tend to feel uncomfortable around people whose philosophy is incompatible with their own. But there obviously arises a problem for a state, because most of the political process, maybe of the whole idea of politics, is designed for a society with a set of common values.
Maybe you have been in a situation where you have argued with someone and you found out that your differences are a direct consequence of a different choice of axioms, but that each of you argued logically consistent under the assumption of his or her set of axioms. Once you hit that spot there really isn't anything to argue about anymore.
And I guess this is pretty much what happened in US (but definitely not only in US) politics, maybe only with the difference that, for obvious reasons, the political process does not support clarifying that differences of opinion follow, at least sometimes, from different philosophical axioms, but instead lets both political camps compete in a never ending “debate” which consists basically only of statements of party A why the worldview of party B is wrong under the assumption of A’s axioms and vice versa. A very exhausting and finally useless process.
Historically, people with such different philosophies tend to live in different geological regions, and those only had to interact with the other minded in a minor way. But this has changed.
I would really much like to present a solution to the resulting political problems, but I don't have one. I just sincerely believe that there is no magical way to resolve fundamental differences in worldview.