Nope, haven't. But I'll bet we're outliers on that one. Most other cultures are a lot more "partisan" - as "Bitch" says, Americans think partisanship is bad. From looking at the politics of other countries, that seems weird.
[WS:] That could be a result of differences between what Arendt Lijphart calls "majoritarian" and "pluralist" democracy. The "majoritarian" model is basically the first past the post duopoly in the commonwealth countries, whereas the "pluralist" model is the continental-style corporatism & parliamentary system in which political parties and interest groups form coalitions. The main difference is that majoritarian system either forces one into the mold of the two ruling parties or otherwise politically marginalizes him altogether. The pluralist system, by contrast, emphasized coalitions between different groups. Lijphart tested these two system for correlates, such as level of social conflict, and found that pluralist systems perform better.
It is not surprise that in a diverse society such as the US forced into the straitjacket of the majoritarian system - split the difference is the most rational attitude. Nobody want to be marginalized by taking positions that are outside defined by the ruling duopoly, yet the number of available alternatives is too narrow to capture the social variety of interest. Therefore, many people try to find "wiggle room" by splitting the difference. It is akin to being forced to provide yes or no answers to questions on complex and ambiguous issues.
Wojtek