Is my description of US society accurate?

I was about to reply to a question in another forum - about feminism - but the principles around contentious issues/conflict and its resolution triggered my (hobby/avidly keen) political thoughts. So I got onto one of my preferred topics - politics.

Like most countries at war; I think the US is in its own political conflict ( not currently in a military conflict ) and that the past few years have seen reality break through the veneer of that normally prevailing political decorum.

The degree of polarization is clear however, such 'polarization', is proven in various places around the world, not to work. It's the anathema of a properly functioning society.

It's overly costly, holds back economic and human (community) growth, stifles job creation and can drive business investment overseas. In summary, it makes most of its people poorer. It generally slows progress (and creates instability) which others may take advantage of leaving the US worse off long term.

However, if the 'debate' were changed ( from that which we have seen over recent years ), such that people from one side of the argument tried to bring other's ( who disagree with their views ), over towards their viewpoint and pro-actively try to bridge the 'gap', progress can be better, more long-lived and less combative along the way.

Over 10 years, I have met and discussed with 12000 - 15000 US citizens and I have learned a lot. Not all, but a lot. Regardless of which home State and with no offense intended to you, the reader, many agreed their minds were siloed/bunkered despite not wanting to be.
Not just the minds of those I spoke to but it was those people who described it as being the norm back home.

Paraphrasing them:
They said they don't have an opportunity to speak to people with differing political opinions (moreso in regard to Republican's), and they said all their friends are Republican.
If they were to speak to Democrats, and air their views openly - to discuss - they wouldn't learn anything and it wouldn't make a difference, yet they would likely be shunned by their (Republican) friends. Not worth the risk, some said.
If that's the reality, it's not just sad but, it's an indictment on the country's supposedly most-democratic political system.

I recall one such (above) conversation vividly because it really surprised me. I'm not easily shocked so 'surprised' is probably about right.

I began to realize/perceive that, across most States, each of them though not actually all, Idaho being one of about 3 (AK, RI the other two); that's when I realized that the US is by and large, a society in conflict.
Yes, already, I knew at election time there was a distinct two-tribes thing but it was never so clear to me that, for some, it runs deep and continually.

Peace processes ( and businesses ), around the world have proven that bridging is better than heated debate/conflict (Tug-o-war). Indeed to pursue that analogy a little, it's seldom that any team wins 'tug-o-war'. The loser generally falls over. In politics, imv, it's bonkers for one side to think it can win against the others. Politics isn't and never will be like that, the loser always comes back, because they erm, haven't lost!

So, no winners and losers; that means the only way to create progress is to bridge the gap.

Moving closer and discussing with those who you disagree with/who you hate/who you consider your enemy, those are the one's to discuss and debate with - however difficult that may be.

What's the point of discussing with those who agree with you? How can that create any meaningful progress?!
Where's the benefit in preaching to the already converted?

Being in the UK, I think that's what's wrong with both the US and UK political discourse.

We, the individuals, who form the population need to start such conversations with others locally. We need to stop following the top-down spin, PR and gaslighting and, instead, look at the reality that's all around us and which those at the top don't have the first clue about.

We need to discuss with our 'neighbors' (which includes people we wouldn't count as friends), about how best your issues can be addressed and push your candidates - before an election [when they're more receptive], - to take your concerns on board.
As communities, we need to take control of our elected reps.
It's they who are supposed to represent you and not - as seems to be a concept amongst some - that they do what they want and we follow.
Spoiler alert; To simply follow; that's not democracy in action and the term 'following' (lol), that's a twatter/fantasy thing.
It's not reality.

To continue with two sides sniping at each other isn't constructive. It's the opposite if the out-workings are examined.
IMV, that was what was happening in the UK over the years immediately prior to when Boris became PM. My perception is that the same happened from earlier in the US, resulting in Trump.

Division and heightened public anxiety was the fundamental to that political change and I think it will 'need' to run it's course before society moves back towards publicly less-confrontational ground.

Sad, though, that a lot of people - the families who enjoy the current tumult; those who wanted such division and those who reacted favorably to those trying to create it, as well as those who are least well-off - it will be they who lose/suffer most. It's always the least well off who pay most!

(Don't get me started on small food packages which per weight/volume are much more expensive than the bigger sized variety of the same stuff! The supermarkets/malls provide an 'affordable' version at small numerical cost but the value is ridiculously low because the price per weight/volume is higher in smaller packs).

So; it won't be those comfortably wealthy and the more rich who suffer most and it won't be those who caused it and got into power as a consequence. That last cohort will benefit most, both, personally and selfishly.

Those who wish things were less volatile and who are better off, they will be able to cope better than the poorest.

Of course; the societal extremes of recent years isn't a new thing.
It is reflective of current society but for whatever reason, (usually high-running emotions or easily triggered public), the wrong people were elected.

What do I mean by the wrong people? I mean the wrong people for the best future of the country - those who have slowed down progress by leading us along a bumpy road, instead of an Interstate - not always wrong in their views but wrong in their ideals and their approach about how to deliver.

Creating or exacerbating such division in the people is proven not to work and it's not yet passed in the US as 2024 may demonstrate. Of course, I don't think it's as much as midway through here in the UK.

I'm surprised also that the public is seemingly content with a system where those who are best-funded can become President regardless of their skillset.

Over the years, hasn't there been a peanut farmer and an actor? OK, I'm going back a bit but who more recently has stood out as impressive - without a war to help them? (even Churchill looked impressive and was supported absolutely during WWII because the Government and the people had a common enemy. Likewise today in Ukraine, Pres. Zelensy is supported). Afterwards; well, basically, Churchill was dumped.

I mean surely there's a better array of potential candidates available in the US and UK to bring improvement to the lives and livelihoods of people across those respective countries?!

(We are led to believe something of the man that 'is', Boris. Former employers and colleagues have described him as a liar and loose with facts, along with other pejorative terms).

Wouldn't it be much better if they were proficient and principled and not appearing, at least, to be under the control of lobby groups and vested interests? Listening to their advisors would also be an improvement.

I think it will be interesting to discover who the two candidates will be, come 2024, in the US. I'm not sure what degree of surprise there'll be but, way back in 2010, (in UK), when the result was a Conservative/Liberal coalition; not many predicted that combination. ( I did as I was having one of those chats with US people. :smug-look: lol ).