The two party system has always been polarizing. You can find the complaint dating back to George Washington. And, the two party system has often been bitter. In 1856, one congressman, Preston Brooks, beat an abolitionist (anti-slavery) congressman to near the point of death using his cane in the middle of Congress.

The two party system has always been polarizing, and there have been thrid parties introduced here and there, while other have been absorbed, dissolved, or incorporated. Parties have have drastic changes - remember that Lincoln was a Republican, which conflicts with the current standing of Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals. It wasn't always this way.

The one thing about a two party system that seem to work, is that they are forced to draw towards the middle, and that has generally functioned. A polarized government needs to come to consensus, and the meeting point has generally been in the middle.

Of course, the middle is sort of an alternating curve. We tend to move from a few years of liberal control into a few years of conservative control and that's been fairly steady. But, even at that, there is balance: A middle ground.

People have a hard time seeing beyond their own perception. We like to say things like, "In times like these," or, "In this political climate," but those are phrases, or at least similar-minded, that go back eons. People were saying that same shit about Julius Caesar.

The two party system works, because it tames the extremes. Sure a third party might turn the tug of war into a triangle, but so far, the two party system has worked. It's broken today, but it worked yesterday and it will work tomorrow.