Maybe we have different definitions of polarization. I’m not focussing on the article right now, so hope I didn’t misunderstand but it talks about the fiction of a common middle ground. That doesn’t matter.

To me, “polarization” is similar to brinksmanship and caught up with that old saying”making laws is like making sausage”. It used to be that whatever the differences, legislators got together to make progress. It results in ugly massive bills filled with ground up random bits and pieces of various animals stuffed in an intestine, but everyone got something out of it. The country won, plus both sides could claim to win something, and the overall affect was somewhat middle of the road. All legislators could succeed in something for their constituents. Now it’s all or nothing. Every little preference is a call for brinksmanship. Every political stunt is an attempt to block something. All too often there is no way to proceed without a supermajority. Congress is dysfunctional. That’s polarization.

The electorate is also polarized. Maybe this is too much a personal experience, too anecdotal, but I used to be able to understand both/all points of view before deciding my opinion. Now I just can’t. As far as I can tell, supporters of one political party has gone so far around the bend that I can no longer relate to them, no longer understand what planet they’re from. Maybe that’s also just what makes the news: people I know who are more conservative are still relatable, although usually seem ignorant or racist. We’re certainly starting from different experience, but our beliefs are even farther apart. That’s polarization