We are Living in the Golden Age of Bipartisanship but Trump May be the end of it

The political scientist John Sides says something that I have some difficulty agreeing with:

"Polarization may be necessary for warfare, but it is not a sufficient cause of it. Parties that are divided over policy can have a serious and honest debate, which can even be heated."

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Polarization-American-Politics-Sides-ebook/dp/B00TQSU4DA/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440997906&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=john+sides+polarizatoin

He believes that in a normal, healthy political environment it's possible still to agree without being disagreeable. This is an idea that's been around ever since 1994 when the start of really nasty polarization got started. 

http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional-ebook/dp/B00FK8Y274/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440998255&sr=1-1&keywords=norm+ornstein

http://www.amazon.com/Gingrich-Senators-Partisan-Warfare-Congress-ebook/dp/B00C2QT3O4/ref=sr_1_5?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1441001901&sr=1-5&keywords=the+gingrich

This feeling is accurate. However, the question is why? Why did the relentless polarization of the two parties start with the rise of the Gingrich Revolution of 1994?

In a world: bipartisanship. Yes, you see the wrong presumption that all the Very Serious People in the Sensible Center operate under is that bipartisanship is a good thing. No. Bipartisanship means we get nothing done-to say that it leads to gridlock seems redundant as it basically is gridlock. 

Certainly l have learned a lot in reading Sides but I would like to ask him when this agreeable disagreement between the parties took place? I will argue the answer to this is it never happened ever, anywhere. 

The reason Congress pre-Republican takerover was so agreeable and 'collegiate' is twofold. 

1. To an extent it's true that the parties weren't always so partisan. There was a time not so long ago when Southern Democrats were more conservative than liberal Republicans up in New England. 

2. But the main reason is that before 1994, the Democrats completely dominated both Houses of Congress though especially the House of Representatives. 

And the GOP minority was pretty well-behaved prior to the rise of Gingrich in the late 70s. Again, we live in a bipartisan era that dates back to the rise of Nixon of all things. So there is the folly of thinking that bipartisanship is this airy, fairy thing. It was started by Nixon. 

Nixon's election was the end of the era that started with FDR's election in 1932 during which the Democrats controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress 28 out o 36 years. 

Most of our history has not been bipartisan then. Before 36 years of Democratic dominance, the GOP had dominated for twice that time from 1860 to 1932 starting with Lincoln. In that time the GOP took the White House 56 of 72 years and had the WH and both Houses of Congress for 42 out of the 72 years. 

Prior to that the Democrats dominated winning the WH 56 of 60 years between the defeat of the Federalists in 1800 and the rise of Lincoln in 1860. 

Since 1968 the two parties have been in an more or less perpetual thumb war, each side desperate to get some advantage no matter how fleeting. 

There was one 'realignment' during that time in the early 90s. Between Nixon and 1992 the GOP had taken five of six Presidential elections, the last  four with at least 41 states and 432 electoral votes each time. 

But at the same time the Dems continued to own Congress-though the GOP did take the Senate for the first 6 years under Reagan. 

In 1992 the Dems with Bill Clinton figured out how to win the Presidency again and in 1994 the GOP under Gingrich's Contract With America learned how to win Congress again. Since then the parties roles have reversed in the last 24 years what they were in the previous 24 years that ended in 1992-with the GOP becoming the Congressional party and the Dem's have become the Presidential party. 

As Sides documents in his other book there have been lots of calls for game-changers or realignments in recent years all proving to be stillborn. 

http://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Choice-Chance-Presidential-Election-ebook/dp/B00KAJJBRY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440999517&sr=1-1&keywords=john+sides+the+gamble

Still, at the risk of just being a partisan optimist. it seems to me that Trump really could change the bipartisan dynamic-which is gridlock-perhaps y starting up a third party that could challenge the GOP across the country post 2016. 

I've gamed this out and if Trump is able to come remotely close to replicating the numbers he has in these polls in the many primaries, then this has a good chance of becoming out and out civil war. 

I imagine the delegates of the states that Trump won simply refusing to do so and Trump saying 'Well you guys obviously weren't fair to me' and then its third party.