I mean...it's not that somewhat compromise is wrong , but the way do it here is such that by the time we agree to consider compromise, one side is already committed to victory and the other feels very much relegated. So whatever compromise does result is used to claim victory or express dissatisfaction. Often this isn't made explicit, but it does happen in one way or another.

Another problem arises when one side (or both) are engaged in the kind of argument where they don't believe they should have to live with compromise. For example, how do you successfully compromise with someone who strongly believes that coups are a black or white situation, regardless of their context? Obviously that's the very thing we're trying to do now, but it also illustrates the inherent difficulty of the situation, and the potential for resentment. Again, I don't really have a solution to this, but I feel it's useful to put this into writing.

EDIT: Not directly related to this post, but very much related to my above post, is the something I want to repeat, and that is that being civil with each other doesn't mean sugarcoating the truth, or using other arguments to hide our true motivations. If we simply don't think someone is fit for government office, we should just say it. If we strongly oppose someone because we simply don't like their political stances, we need to say it. This won't solve the real problem, but at the very least we would have the minimum of courtesy to be honest with each other. We all know certain people don't like each other (I'm not innocent of this either), so we might as well just said it, instead of keeping it contained and releasing that dislike in the form of snark or heated arguing.