I think we understand polarization/bipartisanship wrong. The reason we have such inter-party acrimony is because neither party has a governing vision that has won over the hearts & minds of a supermajority of Americans. So they're locked in a 25% vs. 25% war of attrition. <1/7> 
During the turn of the century, the progressive-populist vision was so compelling that it disrupted every party to the point that every 1912 POTUS candidate ran on it! By the '30s, it developed into the New Deal coalition, which was so successful the GOP had to live inside! <2/7>
The same goes, to a much smaller extent, with the conservative movement in the 1970s-2000s. Reaganism was electorally successful enough that Clinton and the New Dems thought they had to live inside it—and work with the other side to pass its agenda. <3/7>
The reason we have such partisan division now is not because "we forgot how to work together." It's because Reaganism waned—and thus there's no dominant vision we're all living under. So we're locked in a stalemate until something emerges from the jockeying for what's next. <4/7>
But as soon as a new dominant vision is organized — one party will likely capture it and dominate. Then the other party will become like Eisenhower under the New Deal or Clinton under Reaganism and work together with the other side to realize it, fighting over the details. <5/7>
So, the most likely path to bipartisanship is not some watered down version of the zombie visions lingering around. The most likely path to bipartisanship is through full-throated articulations of compelling new visions that have a shot at capturing a real majority. <6/7>
(And a final note to my Democratic Party: we need to be very careful to ensure that whatever comes next — the good governing vision/spirit that emerges as the most compelling to most Americans — is channeled by the Democrats, not the other side!) <7/7>
