Political parties should have to earn your vote every election rather than relying on a "force of habit".
That would be nice, but I've practiced "sucks less" voting since I was old enough to cast a ballot. I vote for the party that sucks less. I don't care for the Democrats, but I don't loathe them quite as much as I do the Republicans.
I'd rather not vote at all; I'm not convinced it does anything but rubber-stamp the continued existence of a government that neither represents the people nor serves the general welfare particularly well, but I continue to vote despite my doubts because I could be wrong about its futility.
I think that, as our country becomes more secular, many people put politics in religion's place. "If my side wins this election, it will bring the kingdom of heaven" (however defined in your worldview). The truth is, no, it won't. It may move things somewhat more toward your preferred configuration, but that's all.
Sure, vote. Campaign for your preferred side. But don't hold your political views with religious fervor. Politics isn't worthy of that. Jesus wasn't running in the last election; He won't be in the next one either.
And to be fair, it does seem like that tribalism feedback loop is ending, as the Democrats have gone for a relatively tame candidate, meanwhile moderate Republicans have already moved away from Trump. So, it seems like this whole populism thing will (hopefully) be a 4-year experiment.
I just hope that the Democratic majority will take the polarization of our politics seriously and make genuine in-roads at attempting to solve it. Unfortunately all the things I can think of that would help solve the problem are going to require sacrifices on the part of our legislators:
1. Establishing term limits for senators and congresspeople
2. Banning insider trading by political leaders
3. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine[1] (or something similar)
4. Lobbying reform (e.g. banning contributions to political parties made by for-profit corporations)
Overall though, it seems like the Republican party could benefit from some of this legislation; introducing more representatives like Romney, rather than McConnell, and giving new life to a seemingly stretched out party.
The final shape of the ACA was largely along the lines described by the Heritage Institute and implemented by future GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It wasn't a liberal dream bill, which would have included at least a government option, or even a single-payer plan. It's a very market-based solution.
Instead, it was presented as "socialism", regardless of the contents. Effectively, the GOP wanted to "ram" the existing system "down the throats" of an overwhelming majority.
My intent here isn't to reopen discussion of the law or even to call them out for bad-faith in discussing it. But I wanted to point out the notion that "shoving down throats" is more about spin than a realistic description of the process. They made it clear, explicitly, that their goal of denying their opponents any kind of win was more important than changing a health care system that overwhelming numbers of people felt was inadequate.
It only takes one side to polarize. I don't believe that the current majority has the power to singlehandedly solve it, when the current minority is intent on singlehandedly continuing it. That's not to absolve Democrats of the need to try, but as long as Republican constituents continue to approve of the legislators who thwart it, it's important for all of us to not draw false equivalences or mis-remember history.