There have been a lot of folks, most with more insight and brainpower than me, who have written about Divide and Rule (in older days, Divide and Conquer). Sun Tzu mentioned the strategy in The Art of War, Caesar used it, the Old French Republic used it, Machiavelli discussed it, the Brits used it, Bacon, Madison, and Jefferson talked about it. And now it's come down to the United States government using it against its own people in order to control and maintain control of the populace. In Appendix I of "Perpetual Peace; a philosophical essay" by Kant, he discusses three methods for maintaining control over the populace. See if they look familiar to you--I've bolded some pertinent passages.....
Hmmmm... Democrats own the House and Senate (for now). Democrat in the White House. I'm seeing something here....i. Fac et excusa. Seize the most favourable opportunity for arbitrary usurpation either of the authority of the state over its own people or over a neighbouring people; the justification of the act and extenuation of the use of force will come much more easily and gracefully, when the deed is done, than if one has to think out convincing reasons for taking this step and first hear through all the ob- jections which can be made against it. This is especially true if the first case mentioned, where the supreme power in the state also controls the legislature which we must obey without any reason- ing about it. Besides, this show of audacity in a statesman even lends him a certain semblance of inward conviction of the justice of his action ; and once he has got so far the god of success (bonus eventus) is his best advocate.
Continuing Bush derangement syndrome. Continued blaming of all problems on Bush, even though it was a Democrat congress that caused a bunch of the problem.2. Si fecisti, nega. As for any crime you have committed, such as has, for instance, brought your people to despair and thence to insurrection, deny that it has happened owing to any fault of yours. Say rather that it is all caused by the insubordi- nation of your subjects, or, in the case of your having usurped a neighbouring state, that human nature is to blame; for, if a man is not ready to use force and steal a march upon his neighbour, he may certainly count on the latter forestalling him and taking him prisoner.
There are too many instances of this. Choose your own.3. Divide et impera. That is to say, if there are certain privileged persons, holding authority among the people, who have merely chosen you for their sovereign as primus inter pares, bring about a quarrel among them, and make mischief between them and the people. Now back up the people with a dazzling promise of greater freedom ; everything will now depend unconditionally on your will. Or again, if there is a difficulty with foreign states, then to stir up dissension among them is a pretty sure means of subjecting first one and then the other to your sway, under the pretext of aiding the weaker.
Kant also says the following--which seems to be a direct commentary on our executive branch as it stands today. I have again bolded some interesting parts:
It may be that despotizing moralists, in practice blundering, often violate rules of political prudence through measures they adopt or propose too precipitately; but experience will gradually retrieve them from their infringement of nature and lead them on to a better course. But the moralizing politician, by glossing over principles of politics which are opposed to the right with the pretext that human nature is not capable of the good as reason prescribes it, only makes reform impossible and perpetuates the violation of law.Those who do not learn from history (or philosophy) end up with an Obama for president. I guess that liberal arts education came in handy after all.
Instead of possessing the practical science they boast of, these politicians have only practices; they flatter the power which is then ruling so as not to be remiss in their private advantage, and they sacrifice the nation and, possibly, the whole world. This is the way of all professional lawyers (not legislators) when they go into politics. Their task is not to reason too nicely about the legislation but to execute the momentary commands on the statute books; consequently, the legal constitution in force at any time is to them the best, but when it is amended from above, this amendment always seems best, too. Thus everything is preserved in its accustomed mechanical order. Their adroitness in fitting into all -circumstances gives them the illusion of being able to judge constitutional principles according to concepts of right (not empirically, but a priori). They make a great show of understanding men (which is certainly something to be expected of them, since they have to deal with so many) without understanding man and what can be made of him, for they lack the higher point of view of anthropological observation which is needed for this. If with these ideas they go into civil and international law, as reason prescribes it, they take this step in a spirit of chicanery, for they still follow their accustomed mechanical routine of despotically imposed coercive laws in a field where only concepts of reason can establish a legal compulsion according to the principles of freedom, under which alone a just and durable constitution is possible. In this field the pretended practical man thinks he can solve the problem of establishing such a constitution without the rational idea but solely from the experience he has had with what was previously the most lasting constitutions constitution which in many cases was opposed to the right.