Can the two sides talk?

Situation of two sides not talking
The ability of the two political sides to talk to each other is declining towards zero.

The political and media spokespersons for the two sides speak only to their own sides. The spokespersons slant and misrepresent facts and characterizations as validates their side's positions. The listeners listen only to their side's facts (or purported facts) and their side's extreme interpretations and characterizations.

The situation has deteriorated so that there is ostensibly genuine belief by many on each side that their facts (or purported facts) are true, and contradictory facts genuinely believed by many on the other side are false. There is widespread unwillingness to consider information that would establish that a fact believed to be true is in fact not true. Beliefs in contradictory facts have become unalterable in a pervasive way.

The purpose of political conversation is to address problems and formulate solutions and courses of action. Such conversation cannot proceed without agreed facts. When there are unalterable beliefs in contradictory facts, conversation stops in the face of there being no agreed facts. As a result there is widespread non-conversation between the two sides.

The spokespersons are a major contributing factor to the inability of the listeners on the two sides to converse with the other side. It is unclear the extent to which the spokespersons themselves genuinely believe in their respective contradictory facts or the extent to which the spokespersons  know they are purveying falsehoods and extreme characterizations which are not "fair and balanced".To the extent they know they are doing the latter, the spokespersons would appear to intend for the listeners on the two sides not to be able to talk to the other side.

Regardless of whether the spokespersons are knowing and intentionally culpable or they are stupid in their beliefs, the effect is the same, that is, to render their listeners unable to talk to the other side.

The inability of the two sides to talk to one another needs to be judged for its consequences.

In the absence of political conversation, problems cannot be properly addressed and formulating solutions and courses of action cannot be accomplished.

The two sides not talking to each other heightens polarization in the country and hyper partisanship in Congress, making Congress dysfunctional and unable to act.

Causes of the situation
One cause of the situation is human nature that has an affinity for the stimulation and exhilaration of conflict, participating in conflict, and identifying with one's "team" in the conflict. This needs sides in opposition to each other. This aspect of human nature gets fulfilled in the culture war and political polarization that is going on in the country, and that many in the society seem to desire.

Talking with the other side can lessen conflict. Not talking to the other side keeps conflict going. Thus there is reason the two political sides not to talk to each other.

Not all the citizens desire conflict to the same degree. The extremes desire the conflict more, and the extremes are more in control of the political activity on the two sides, and their not talking to each other is dominant.

Second, it is probably the case that the political leaders of the two sides advantage themselves personally by there being a divided, polarized electorate, and these political leaders and spokespersons foment division, including by speaking to their followers in the one sided ways described above. The more they do that, the more they are elevated and empowered by their listeners who desire conflict.

On the other hand, political leaders who want to lessen division and wish to speak moderately are sidelined.

The media spokespersons also are a contributing factor that grows out of the above affinity that human beings have for the stimulation and exhilaration of conflict. The media is at bottom a commercial enterprise that depends on audience, conflict attracts greater audience, and so the media and their spokespersons pick sides and purvey one sided messaging to their respective audiences in the way described above that keeps conflict stirred and gains audience. The owners of the media  profit from the division and polarization in the electorate, and the owners pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions, to the anchors and hosts on the owners' political news shows.

Information is coming to light that other countries which are adversaries of the United States are employing "active measures" to incrase the political polarization in the United States and endeavor to manipulate the same to the advantage of such other countries.

Can anything be done?
The collective good of the country is not well served by the two sides not being able to talk to each other.

The forces of human nature, and of personal political interests and media commercial interests being promoted by political warfare, are potent impediments to altering the situation of the two sides not talking to each other.

At a minimum, the causes of the situation should be publicized, and the culpable perpetrators (the political and media spokespersons on the two sides who purvey the one sided messaging) need to be called out. They need to called out either for their stupidity if they believe what they say, or be forced to acknowledge they do not believe what they say but they say it nonetheless to further their personal interests and not for the good of the country.

All TV political talk shows, and their anchors and hosts, are not equally culpable in fomenting division and polarization. They should be judged comparatively, those shows, anchors and hosts who have more egregious practices should be harshly called out.

Also people need to think more about the "active measures' of other countries who are adversaries of the United States and are endeavoring to increase and manipulate to their advantage the political warfare in the United States. The spokespersons for the two political sides need to forge a joint recognition of the threat and harm to the country and join hands to defend against the "active measures" programs of the other countries.