Not to come across as overly caustic, but I don't think any of it was beneficial to political debate. When I read the first paragraph, I see what looks like pandering to the masses. It completely ignores viewpoints, but just suggests that everyone has a pure goal. To a degree, I think you can boil down the aim of people, and say that they think their goal is for the betterment of the United States. Although, I don't think you can ignore what they're trying to do. For example, there's a section of the right that keeps wanting to push laws/judgments that align with their religion regardless of whether this is acceptable or aligns with American ideals such as freedom of religion. Those are not pure motives.
As for the second paragraph, I don't think it's accurate to suggest "both sides" in regard to division. Sure, you can easily point out instances where either side won't work with the other; however, I think that tends to look too much at just the surface. It's important to understand why this happens. A good example would be the recent COVID stimulus bill. It's a surprise to no one that the original Democrat-backed bill was rebuked by the Republicans. The Republicans came back with their own version of the bill, and were rather obstinate in regard to working with the Democrats. In the end, the Democrats did remove what would be considered the Republicans strongest point of disagreement, the $15 minimum wage increase. However, even with that modification, not a single Republican voted for it regardless of how it would benefit their constituents. Ultimately, I would argue that the Republican party tends to operate in bad faith, and attempting to work with them is a lesson in futility.