This presidential election will undoubtedly be pored over in history books for decades, examined by political scientists for its penchant for division over unity. It saw one of the unlikeliest of Republican presidential candidates, now President-elect Donald Trump, square off against Hillary Clinton, an entrenched politician whose road to the White House was indeed bumpy. Their common denominator? They were pretty unpopular outside their base.

The race, bombarded into American minds to the point of exhaustion, also led to a civil war among Americans, turning political graciousness into a dysfunctional affair among the pols. It stands to reason that partisanship, fraught and apoplectic, will continue to be the order of the day.

And in looking back at the last 18 months, where developments along the campaign trail were akin to a soap opera, lessons were certainly picked up. These are lessons politicians of all kinds should heed.

The lesson here is the dangers of extremes. Never have we seen a presidential race where level-headed behavior was muted in favor of the loudest voices in a room. It was evidently clear in the unabashed support of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, inspiring social media hashtags such as “Never Trump” or “Trump Train,” further driving the wedge. It’s the extremes that produced the attention-grabbing headlines, leaving the more moderate tone in a lurch. For politicians to restore the trust, they must put moderate Americans at the forefront.

Another lesson is the growing crowd of Americans actively taking part in the process, redefining political parties, shifting progressive policies to the mainstream, and demonstrating that Super PACs are not the be-all-end-all to winning an election. Critics of Bernie Sanders and Mr. Trump be damned—it was the unlikely voters who guided the race along. It’s too early to tell how many voters went to the polls, but the consensus was very clear: more Americans became involved. Their voice grew louder, as indicated by the ratings for televised presidential debates. Say what one will, the more active participation the better.

Their only flaw: They should listen to the other side. It became a popular sentiment that anyone who supported Mr. Trump was indeed crazy or out of touch. But perhaps Clinton supporters should pause in thinking why that’s the case. Trump supporters saw a system that’s entirely broken, forcing them to consider a candidate with no political strings attached. Clinton supporters called it unhinged thinking, while Trump supporters saw it as an unfiltered look at reality.

There’s a belief that compromise is a form of weakness, where one’s values are in jeopardy by the mere hint of concessions. By arriving at the middle, can both sides be stronger. The constant fighting over the direction of this country this election season came with hardly an ounce of resolve. We are better together. As the saying goes, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Passion can surely galvanize the masses, light a fire to take action. It was clear in this general election where many who’ve never cared about politics have taken an interest. But some jumped the gun too quickly, sticking with a candidate well before they were truly vetted. Their only vetting is their unrelenting dislike for the candidate, a poor excuse. If you’re buying a car you typically do as much research as you can. The same principle can apply to deciding who will be your leader for the next four years. 

Perhaps the most important lesson here is the public’s willingness to vote, despite the long lines and confusion that abounds a polling site. If only this fervor were to extend to the primary, particularly in the Bronx, where voter turnout is so low it hardly leaves politicians trembling. With the Bronx overwhelmingly voting Democrat, the Democratic incumbents always feel they are safe when the primary rolls around.

But should the same number of Bronx voters of the General Election come out for the Bronx primary, a contest arguably more aligned with their daily lives, it would produce the kind of accountability that would see the unqualified and downright corrupt leave office. More voters coming out in droves would signify less of a guarantee that the same perennial politicians will be voted into office. You want an electorate that can bring politicians to their knees.

Unfortunately, the Bronx has not caught up to that. We are still seeing dismal voter turnout numbers in a borough desperate to receive the kind of attention that can bring in resources to combat societal ills. Perhaps the fire that ignited this election will return in 2020. Only then will we realize if the lessons have truly been learned.