All this makes clear what we all kind of knew: that institutional stability and continuity is partisan issue and has been for a long time.
I’ve long joked that the Democrats are the party of “having a government at all,” but it’s not actually a joke.
I know the institutional structure was never “really” neutral, but I think we’re going to miss that enabling fiction going forward.
Because once everything is politicized, you are already virtually in a state of civil war. And the other side has all the guns.
This is where Zizek’s claim that the shock to the system from Trump could be good is so irresponsible and just plain dumb.
Trump doesn’t open up the space for political contestation, he destroys it.
[Editor’s note: This is kind of a shorter version of my Schmittian Reflections on the Election.]
An und für sich 
A paradox, when everything is recognized as ‘political, there is actually no room for political debate. Whereas previously, the fiction of institutional neutrality helped ensure a minimum amount of political contestation, albeit in a highly managed way.
Your juxtaposing of ‘politicized’ with ‘state of civil war’ is striking given that politics is seen as a way out from a state of war. It seems to me that perhaps ‘politicized’ is perhaps the wrong term.
The election of Trump is seen as a rupture, but in sense is it not a continuity? The application of market logic outside its originating field, into politics, has cumulated in Trump the businessperson (whack – take that Trump, I refer to you as a person!) who will still maintain his business links whilst in office?
i.e. why have business people advising politicians? Political disintermediation! According to Wikipedia disintermediation is facilitated by high market transparency in which buyers are aware of supply prices direct from the manufacturer – think Wikileaks! Let us cut out the political middleman and buy Trump who does not need to be advised by business people because he is one.