America is like a pair of stranded sailors who have escaped a sinking ship by means of a life-raft. They have only one bottle of water between them and a sandwich. A single person can survive on this, but if two hungry sailors have to share it, both will perish.

So what's going to happen? (Be honest!) The two sailors will trash-talk each other insensibly, then fall back on instinctual behavior where anything goes. The grip of civilization, inculcated over innumerable generations, will loosen, replaced by the desperate need to survive. The two sailors will fight to the death for the meagre rations--itty-bitty stuff they could normally get for a buck or two!
America is at that point now, if not so literally; but the two sides hate each other enough that one will gladly push the other over the side of the raft. Americans, governed by an obsolete ethos, can only think in terms of unity and disunity; and they will respond, as they know best, by rebuking each other for inciting disunity--whereas I think in terms of love, hate, and divorce; and right now, America does not have enough love to maintain it as a single nation focussing on common goals; but I also think of "hate" in terms of feuding oppositional philosophies, rather than anything personal.

In a best-case scenario, our leaders should think pro-actively about resolving these feuding philosophies. The leaders in the one party cannot simply say to the other "Quit inciting so much disunity! It hurts our nation!" In truth, no one needs to incite disunity. It remains a constant in the governing process, due to the opposite directions the two sides want to take the country--over the heads of the other side! You would honestly have to say instead, "Quit worrying me with this! There's nothing we can do about it! We just have to live with it!"If anybody is holding up a resolution of America's schizoid non-nation, it is our elected-leaders! After all, they have their careers and prestige on the line, when anyone starts talking about a division. We think of them as people who have reached the zenith of power in a democratic society; but we must distinguish between our "elected-officials" and our "leaders", if we want to maintain a realistic view of our problems.

Office-holders have to exhibit good rhetorical eloquence; they must have showmanship, adapt well to the political give-and-take necessary during negotiations, and prove their indispensability in party caucuses. For all the showmanship, office-holders have to play as a team and accept the defining talking-points of their parties. So most decision-making takes place in the course of "politicking", i.e. compromises between the parties, that leave most voters feeling dissatisfied and short-changed, and after all, the voters have to pay for it.

Democrats need to understand that the loss of patience among Republicans supporting Trump reflects this revolt against politicking. With each compromise, Republicans feel they are losing the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. They get lost in the compromise-cacophony of shuffling feet. Republicans like Trump because what you see is what you get. He stands out as a leader--opposing this flow in the national body politic--because so few of our elected officials in either party exhibit his style of uncompromising leadership.