I feel that narrowly defining politics as it's negative aspects is dangerous because it leaves us (English speakers) without a word for the necessary processes

I feel that narrowly defining politics as it's negative aspects is dangerous because it leaves us (English speakers) without a word for the necessary processes of organising ourselves and resolving differences between more than two people. Demagoguery, manipulation and sowing hate are all political but so is choosing to stand up to a bully on someone else's behalf. I think that many people (not the OP) use this as a device to present their preferred view as the "natural" or "only viable" view and to dismiss any consideration of alternatives as "political." Regarding the article, I think it is true that, for a couple of decades now, many players have chosen to discredit political discussion and compromise in favour of tribalism. The message crudely is that everybody lies so there is no point trying to figure anything out and you should just stick with your side. This is a political position and it is my (political) view that this is terrible. I'm not sure that I would directly link this to the number of undergraduates taking history in the US though. Everybody has political stances and a sense of history and developing both is a lifelong process where quality matters more than a particular formalism. Edit: this was meant as a reply to dalbasal but I messed up.