It causes much heated discussion, but so long as the country is divided down the middle, it's hard for any party to push much of its agenda through.
Presidents usually have the ability to push through one thing before they lose control of Congress and the electorate tires of them - Obama with health care, Bush with his war, Clinton with getting elected, maybe Trump with immigration.
If anything happens to break the stalemate, we may be in trouble, but both parties are unstable coalitions which tend to break down if they push for too much.
If Americans work the politics skillfully we can avoid civil war, but if people give up on the process entirely, that's when we run into trouble.
It causes much heated discussion, but so long as the country is divided down the middle, it's hard for any party to push much of its agenda through.
The problem we face at present is not just that the country is divided 50-50 or thereabouts but what we are divided over.
Historically, the country has been divided by issues that are addressed by the Constitution as it now stands. Arguing about issues "within the framework of the Constitution" can be resolved by the government and the electoral process.
This time, however, a part of one side (not comprising the entire 50% though) wants changes to the Country that ultimately require the Constitution itself to be overthrown and replaced by a socialist Constitution.
As Dennis Prager said in the article which is the subject of this thread, these types of arguments/divides cannot be resolved peacefully within the Constitution.
One side of the divided country contains a group which seeks a regime change.