>

Since I will see a ban from being brutally honest, I will say nothing can truly unify Americans. Americans are created to be different from one another, and they are fanatic when defending their morals and beleifs. There is no peaceful way to unify Americans when on one side we have the Conservative, Neo-Confederate Southerners and the Liberal, Woke populations.
The only thing that unites people is a common enemy. If America was attacked or invaded by a foreign power, that would unite us. That’s exactly why Bush was so incredibly popular after 9/11. >

It makes me wonder if the same effect would have happened if we had a Democratic president. Would Fox News have immediately blamed Democrats for the attacks, leading to a 50/50 split instead of the 90% Bush got? >

Just look at Benghazi. An attack that left 4 Americans dead in Libya was immediately branded as Obama/Hillary's fault for failing to protect them.
Clinton oversaw the OKC bombing, but that was done by a bunch of right-wing cranks so it was hard to put a political spin on it against him. He was also only president for a couple of weeks when the first WTC attack happened in 1993. >

You can’t unify with people for whom exclusion is their core belief.  It’s the paradox of tolerance.
If you throw a party, you can welcome everyone, but as soon as say, someone who advocates killing people with red hair shows up, the redheads with feel endangered.  
You can only unify with people willing to commit to unity.  So the only course to Unity is to cull the bigots, which can lead them cullers to becoming bigots themselves. >

You're definitely not someone we could unify with. >

Hence the paradox of tolerance.  If nazis will accept Jews, and that makes me not accept nazis, am I just as bad?  How much hatred is one supposed to tolerate in the name of tolerating everyone?  Is that even possible? >

As Ronald Reagan once referenced to help cool negotiations with Gorbachev - alien invasion (and yes, that conversation happened)