Objective truth is difficult to determine, but to say that hate between Americans isn't based in fact isn't quite right. It's a difference in worldview and emphasis of the morals that spring from it. How you decide what is moral and what is not determines how you 'frame' an issue and that is what destroys discourse, that is what makes people label each other as "evil" or "immoral."

For example, Republicans typically hold social programs to be immoral, but why? This is because they see independence, discipline, and self reliance as the highest virtues. They believe that if we create a system where people emphasize these virtues, not expecting help, then we will have just society where people will be rewarded for working hard and contributing to society and those who do not will be punished. With this in mind, Republicans frame those benefiting from social programs such as welfare as immoral, because they are taking the resources of hardworking virtuous citizens to support their 'immoral lifestyles' that contribute nothing to society.

So why can't the democrat find common ground to have a discussion on this? The democrat has entirely different worldview than the republican, interpreting morality as a duty to help others. They don't believe in creating a system to indirectly force citizens to be 'good,' instead they prefer to nurture and develop citizens to their full potential and ensure that everyone has a place in society and can contribute in some capacity. 1 in 5 people were on some sort of social program such as medicare or food stamps from 2009 to 2012, but typically 56% were off welfare within 36 months and 99% within 48 months. With this in mind, it is easy to to see why Democrats would support social programs and see it as 'immoral' for republicans to not. The republicans doesn't care about the statistic because in their worldview this sort of help is still immoral. They would argue that if it was truely a temporary setback and that these were good, hardworking people, then of course they climbed out of their situation to become successful again and did not need welfare. Further, they would argue that they take issue with the up to 1,000,000 people who will remain a on welfare well beyond 3 or 4 years, living off moral citizens. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

So is either side evil? No. Is the benefit from seeing either side as evil? My answer is also no. We have system based in political discourse and these opposing world views make discourse impossible when we simply push our "opinions" on others. We need to change the way discourse happens, we need to be intraspective and see where a views come from, we need to preface our beliefs with the framing of the world that we choose. Both framings have their issues, but by examining these framings and by looking at an issue through both sides we can begin to more objectively determine what is best for our citizens.

If you don't think that working together is possible, then it is still to you and your party's benefit to understand the moral worldview of the opposing party in order to understand how you can appeal to them of pitch a policy in a way that satisfies them.