There is a notion that there is a "centrist" position in a political spectrum. I consider that
a myth. Because of upbringing, environmental attitudes, philosophy of the importance of
being a nurturer or an authoritarian (see George Lakoff on this), people develop ideas about governing very early. The problem is how to address the partisanship that grows out of radically different world views. A sense of justice sometimes leads to a kind of self-righteous anger which obscures the need for resolving differences in a peaceful and logical manner. Sometimes though, accomodation is not a good thing. Compromise weakens certain positions that are taken that may be unpopular but nonetheless good for society.
Women's rights, for example. Abolition. The repeal of child labor laws. The idea is that it's "good to get along and not go along."

I think the thread here is problematic in that partisanship is built in to the political system.
There is a position or a neutralizing or weakening of that position. Accomodation as for example in the aforementioned social movements is often harmful and regressive to those movements. The solution to polarized views is not anger or "my way or the highway". The solution is understanding the rationale behind a point of view that you don't agree with.
This in no way makes it necessary for you to agree with it but what it does is shed light on
why people think and behave certain ways. An exchange of honest ideas becomes apparent when the adversarial role of anger is lessened but adversarial debate is at the heart of the American experience. That's why we have lawyers and habeas corpus.

Also, the solution is dealing with the issues rather than the personalities. I think it's possible to extricate the anger and "line in the sand" approach and focus on the real issues. When this is done, I think we see more agreement on many so-called "polarizing" issues. For example, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We can mostly agree on this goal without agreeing on how to get there.

We need also to see past the labels. Labeling presents a way of distorting issues by making certain assumptions as to how a person believes. For example, communism.
I think it becomes important to ask "what kind of communism are we talking about here?"
Even fascism has different patterns ie: Mussolini style as opposed to Hitler's Nazism.
We need to define our terms more precisely so that we can agree on what we are discussing. Name-calling is a power move to avoid the issue.

So I think partisanship is inevitable if you arrived at a passionate view of what you think of as being just and fair. There are those who refuse to take a stand on anything and this is
probably a kind of weak-kneed accomodation or a position that hasn't yet been thought out. Partisanship is not the problem. The problem is how we learn to deal with it. Anger and inflexibility doesn't serve. A willingness to see the other person's point-of-view and respect for that person even if you don't agree is a key.

There is a problem in dealing with these issues and that is one of "sociopathy". There are criminals in the world. For them, it's about power and not discovering truth. Here, society plays a role by identifying them, isolating them and shining a light on this behavior. I think that many nations of the world saw that with Hitler and Stalin and responded constructively.

Frank Hamilton