Storm Chaser Network

The Politics of Division

Written by JP Mac

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.

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….


  • The idea that the two parties ideologically flip-flopped over the 1964 civil rights act is a myth. Yes, LBJ supported the act, but most of the rest of his party did not. 63% of Democrats in the House and supported civil rights, as compared to 80% of Republicans. In the Senate, the act was supported by 82% of Republicans. Even LBJ’s support for the Civil Rights act was more out of pragmatism than ideology. We know this based on how he tried to convince those in his own party to support the legislation: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” – LBJ So, just how many politicians actually left their original parties in this “flip-flop'” You’d be hard pressed to count them on one hand without having fingers left over. Sen Strom Thurmond did switch, while his colleague Robert Byrd, a KKK member, elected to stay in the Democratic party. Byrd by the way, lead a filibuster against passage to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Myth: BUSTED.

  • A grounding in US political history and linguistics repay our time and attention will reveal the shifting nature of political alignments (It’s actually a concept called “Party Alignment”) and the dramatic morphing and transformations of political labels. Your description of Democrats and Republicans as being over time fixed in their positions is inaccurate. FDR, a Democrat, issued executive order number 8802, Truman, a democrat, integrated the military with executive order 9981, and LBJ another Democrat, with the support of MLK, a Democrat, pushed through the Civil Rights Act 1964, just to name of few of Democrats’ Civil Rights measures. Facts are nice. Simple, clear language and a measured tone advance the argument oh so readily. Thank you.

  • Power Mr. Brown is an illusion, it can be given away but not taken. That is one premise of the Constitution which the Democrats lie about. As long as individual responsibility and freedom are cherished and protected by the people it protects. It’s a two way street.
    Look back in history, Gandhi, King, Kennedy, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, Christ, Mohammed, Budda, Churchill, ,,, Pick your choices on the men and women who took the responsibility to ensure freedom from tyranny in one form or another. It’s possible some were perfect, some were definitely not. What they have in common is a desire to use their perceived responsibility for the human race,, instead of selfish enrichment. Not to say none were wealthy economically, but all were driven by the force of desire to be a good human. And to provide and protect more than just themselves. All had unique reasons for the way they voiced and acted on their responsibility as they perceived it.
    What I see is people who are coming together to protect the freedom that we enjoy here. They are doing it to the dismay of an “establishment” which has proven they will take advantage of the power we gave them. Giving it back is not an option. Using lies and media propaganda to cover for and promote Hillary.
    Thus keeping themselves in power, and making themselves wealthy at the cost of our lives in servitude to the government machine..
    Globalist totalitarians (the Obama,Clinton,Soros,gangofeight,NationalSocialistDemocraticParty,elitist,LeftistMedia,) for their own reasons want to continue on the path “Of do as I say, not as I do.
    From Slavery to Global warming and any other reason to twist the lie that they are the ones that want to help.
    Saving children, Saving seals, ending genocide, keeping our streets safe, are more than just political talking points, unless you actually do get the problem fixed all you are doing is ensuring you or you cohort gets elected. Can’t have the money train passing the whistle stop can we???
    Those not paying attention and those not studying history are doomed to repeat it…
    Vote Anybody But Hillary Clinton… Bashar Assad, Vladimir Putin, Richard Nixon, Heck invite the reigning Queen of England to come over and take America back,,, Anyone But Hillary “The Apocalypse” Clinton.
    Dear god let us pray, deliver us from evil………

  • Excellent analysis of the Democratic ploy. I pray that the Blacks who are affected by the Democrat psychology become aware of the message and deeds of the Democratic party. Our so called Black leaders allow for this radical and racist behavior because of their greed (this can be analogized to the HOUSE —— and those Blacks who worked in the field. Somehow we got to strip these Blacks from the power that was given to them. It is our own Black leaders that is our worst enemy. This response was wrote from the perspective of the Black race but it refers to all minority groups who is under the spell of the Democratic machine.

Leave a Comment

About the author

JP Mac

U.S. Army veteran, served in U.S. and downrange. I’m a conservative with a libertarian bent.