The question was not necessarily "wait" but rather work with the other side with some level of respect as people regardless of viewpoint. The quotation I pulled out from your reference states constructive tension... and a tolerance for it. I'm not sure the name-calling and actions on both sides, as well as the reactions in response to behavior due to this tension, is tolerant or constructive.
There is no chance of reconciliation with the Klan.
Is it name-calling to call those who actually are racist "racist"? Perhaps some may want to be respectful and say that they are very fine people and not refer to the racism, but that (at best) is like trying to avoid the whole discussion rather than striving for a solution
. If we are just waiting for people to die off and hopefully not spread their vitriol before they do so, we will be waiting a long time, a long time during which we will be spreading our own vitriol. It doesn't sound like progress.
The SPLC high estimate is 8,000 members. To put that in context for a country of almost 326 million people, that works out to 0.0032% of the adult population.
I know in many cases a real conversation is impossible. But I'm suggesting that the way we approach the conversation is observed by many on the sidelines and it turns them off. My sibling's in-laws voted for Trump and are from the south (and we happen to be different ethnicities). I like them; they are good people and I will defend them fully, even though I don't agree with their choice for president. I don't like talking politics with them, but I want to understand them. How do I reconcile that with some colleagues and friends that I mostly agree with, but who instantly refer to those that support Trump as racists or enablers of racists? Is that how I should broach the topic with them?