Partisan ideological divide

One scholarly paper explains that the ideological divide in America that inhibits collaboration and consensus can be breached when "partisan identity and identity-related convictions are made salient." Otherwise, leaders must place greater emphasis on achieving desired outcomes and addressing priority needs than upon their particular political identity. 

What about "identity-related convictions"? Such beliefs are manifest in party platforms and politicians' manifestos.

Ability to move forward following the outcome of Election 2016 depends on upon which political party and winning candidate can demonstrate the most flexibility, adaptability, and agility. The most rigid of choices will not be the best for American progress.

"Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. 

Cohen, Geoffrey L.; Sherman, David K.; Bastardi, Anthony; Hsu, Lillian; McGoey, Michelle; Ross, Lee 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 93(3), Sep 2007, 415-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.415 

Abstract 

Three studies link resistance to probative information and intransigence in negotiation to concerns of identity maintenance. Each shows that affirmations of personal integrity (vs. non-affirmation or threat) can reduce resistance and intransigence but that this effect occurs only when individuals' partisan identity and identity-related convictions are made salient. Affirmation made participants' assessment of a report critical of U.S. foreign policy less dependent on their political views, but only when the identity relevance of the issue rather than the goal of rationality was salient (Study 1). Affirmation is increased concession making in a negotiation over abortion policy, but again this effect was moderated by identity salience (Studies 2 and 3). Indeed, although affirmed negotiators proved relatively more open to compromise when either the salience of their true convictions or the importance of remaining faithful to those convictions was heightened, the reverse was true when the salient goal was to compromise. The theoretical and applied significance of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)" 

(With copy edits from J. George) 

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/93/3/415/

An old story illustrates that the fix is not yet in.

“Post-Partisan: Fixing our ideological divide 

By Jonathan Soros    October 28, 2013

As Americans examine the astounding dysfunction of their government, gerrymandering is usually cited as the prime culprit. This narrative offers a compelling villain: venal politicians who draw district boundaries for partisan advantage or to protect their own incumbency. 

On the surface, it makes sense that manipulating district lines could be responsible for the increase in non-competitive, non-diverse congressional seats and the rise of ideologues who take radical positions without fear of voter retribution. But this ignores evidence that gerrymandering is only partly responsible for the current partisanship — and that eliminating it will not address the calamity we are witnessing. 

No one disputes that congressional districts have become less competitive. During the last government shutdown in 1995, 79 of the 236 House Republicans represented districts that supported President Bill Clinton in his 1992 election. Today, only 17 of the 232 House Republicans represent districts that backed President Barack Obama — demonstrating more partisan consistency at the district level.” 

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/27/post-partisan-fixing-our-ideological-divide/ 

Reuters Image