The Politics of Division



E-mail :*

Politics of DivisionThe Democrat stock in trade has always been division.  Whether it was the quite literal division they sought between American Indians and whites during the 19th century, the societal division between blacks and whites during the 20th, or the division of every minority group against every majority group in the 21st. Pitting American against American has been part of the formula that has driven virtually every Democratic campaign in this country since Andrew Jackson.  Through most of American history, they have been on the wrong side of virtually every civil rights issue.  In the 1960’s they came up with what would become their new template for their politics of division:  Identify a group, offer them help, but then implement laws and regulations that insure they continue to need it.  Anyone opposed to their scheme is then be labeled a bigot.

Another way to describe their Democratic divisive formula would be:  Favor one group that constitutes a large enough voting bloc, and offer them just enough, not to solve their problems, but to get their vote.  Most of the time, the quickest and easiest way to buy a group’s vote is to create a program with a high-sounding name, like “the war on poverty”. The program may or may not actually help the community, but regardless, the administrators who lobbied and donated to the proper candidates get paid or otherwise rewarded. The obvious question then becomes: Who do you get the money from?  You can only take so much money from the middle-class before they stop voting for you, so you take from the rich.  How do you get the voters to go along?  Convince them that the money the wealthy have was ill-gotten and at the expense of one or more of the favored groups.  To do this, you first need to portray the economy as a zero sum game– stress the notion that the economy is a pie, and every slice that someone takes out of it leaves less for everyone else.  If someone is making more money, someone else, probably you, must be making less.  If you convince a large enough segment of society that the rich one’s gain the poor one’s loss, then it is easy to pit one segment against the other.

When it comes to civil rights, Democrats have consistently been on the wrong side of history.  The civil rights battle at the forefront of the American psyche is still the one for black equality.  They got that one wrong and have been trying to find new civil rights causes that they can get right ever since. Liberals have to feel good about themselves.  Problem is, the policy that feels good may not actually be the best policy. Conservatives have a nasty habit of pointing this out when it occurs.  Nothing can stand in the way of the liberal and their need for unconditional approval.  Anyone who stands in the way must be demonized and marginalized.

If you believe in dealing strongly with the issue of illegal immigration on the basis that it robs citizens and legal immigrants of jobs and wage earning power, you’re anti-immigrant.  Of course the logic involved in calling someone who supports legal immigration anti-immigrant when they don’t support illegal immigration is questionable, but it’s never been about logic with liberals, only emotions.  The same thing can be said about how the left tries to portray those who don’t want to let in refugees from predominantly Muslim countries who can’t be properly screened.  If you’re against letting in vast numbers of Syrian refugees in without proper vetting, you’re anti Muslim. To be vocally against Islamic-extremism, is somehow to be against all Islam.  The left needs to see themselves as not just right, but morally superior to those who disagree with them.  If there is no real point of disagreement then one must be invented.  The language that the other side uses must be condemned and discredited in order to maintain that sense of superiority, hence if conservatives use the term “Islamic extremist terrorism” and that goes to the identity of a group, then identity politics demands that the term be deemed wrong.  Those who seek to be the arbiters of right and wrong with regards to a group must then control its identity so it can be tied to a voting bloc.  No one really cares about hurting the feelings of terrorists, so that sub-group must be tied at all times to a group that voters do care about i.e.:  Muslims.  The use of the modifiers “Islamic” and “radical” to describe “extremists” by conservatives affords the liberal a chance to create an imaginary division between they who don’t use the term and the those who do; even when it is clearly understood both sides are speaking about the exact same group of murderous fanatics.  It’s a complete contrivance meant to create division where there is none for the sake of being on the ‘right’ side.

The politics of division is the main weapon in the Democratic arsenal.  Their strategy is simple:  divide and conquer.  They pick a voting bloc, along any lines it doesn’t matter, give them victim status then assign a villain.  Then come the promises…  Give the ‘victim’ a largess, and/or take punitive action against the alleged bad guy.  The oppressor is always the larger party, usually they call them ‘big’ as in ‘big oil’, or ‘big pharma’, just so you know who to blame.  As an aside, you’ll never hear reference to ‘big academia’ or ‘big government’ from the left as those are clients and are thus exempt. Anyone who would dare to criticize their divisive agenda is demonized as a bigot, sexist, or (fill in the blank)-phobe.  They claim to stand for tolerance while at the same time exercising extreme intolerance when it comes to opposing viewpoints. Theirs is the only morally defensible position, therefore tolerance is not required.  If public sentiment is not initially on their side, a massive propaganda campaign is launched to ensure you know who the opponents of their agenda are and who to despise.  There are no exceptions, countries, competing political philosophies, even major world religions are fair game to be condemned and marginalized as it suits the Liberal cause.  Finally, they ensure their propaganda cannot be assailed by argument, as they control the very language to be used around it.  Their allies in the media and academia see to that.   Their words need not be honest, their ideas need not even work, so long as the formula works to get them the power they seek before their charade is exposed.  By the time that happens, they have moved on to the next con, the next group in need of their “help”.  And so it goes….