Divide and Conquer - Machiavelli Understood

[MineralMan]

It's one of the oldest strategies on the planet. If you can get your enemies to split up into factions, while you remain undivided, you win. In latin, it's divide et impera or divide ut regnes. In Greek, it's ???ί??? ??ὶ ???ί????. Machiavelli extolled its virtues in his Art of War. It's a sure-fire tactic if implemented well.

Today, it's still in use in politics, and we often see it applied by Republicans. By fomenting unrest and division among Democrats, Republicans know that they're working toward their own goals. So, they actively work to create divisions among their opponents, using every strategy possible.

They know that if they can sow discontent with the current leadership of the Democratic Party that they can discourage things like election turnout by voters, and other things that help them retain power, even though they are in an actual popular minority. As we move toward the 2014 elections, we should be watchful for attempts to divide us by pitting us against ourselves.

We should not be taken in by this strategy, but should encourage common ground agreement among ourselves, especially here on DU, where most of us are activists at one level or another. We will disagree at times in some areas, because there is never 100% consensus among groups of any size. We may hold one position in some area, despite others of us holding a different position.

But, we should all agree that movement toward a more progressive United States is a goal worth working toward. If we agree on that, we can work together to elect people who will promote that goal. Not every elected Democratic legislator or other office-holder will work as hard as another one might, and some will merely vote with the caucus most of the time. But, if progress is the goal, losing to the opposing party is most certainly not the solution.

We must fight against being divided in seeking that goal. We must watch for and recognize attempts to divide us. Sometimes, those attempts are made by people who pretend they share our goals. Sometimes, they are very subtle and capable of presenting their position in a way that encourages us to bicker among ourselves. Being watchful means carefully assessing situations where we differ to see whether we are differing materially in our beliefs or differing only in minutiae of beliefs. If we are divided by details and let those divisions spread and fester, the opposition accomplishes what it set out to do - Divide and conquer.

If we argue among ourselves over nuances, we miss opportunities for collegiality in the essentials. In my opinion, in this election year, where the entire House of Representatives, a third of the Senate, and state legislatures all across this country are at stake, a failure to get Democratic voters to the polls could be disastrous.

Let's put aside our differences in particulars and work together on the larger goals. This year, lets:

GOTV 2014!

[okaawhatever]

1. K & R nt

[CJCRANE]

2. IIRC...

Machiavelli wrote The Prince and Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War.

[MineralMan]

6. Machiavelli also wrote a book of that name:

The Art of War - Machiavelli

Edit: Made the link work.

[CJCRANE]

9. Thanks, I've learned something new!

I always associated that title with Sun Tzu.

[MineralMan]

11. Yes, that's a more well-known work by that title.

However...

[malthaussen]

14. Funny thing about Sun Tzu...

... he only came into popularity in the West relatively recently (within the past 50-odd years), and really became popular after Vietnam. Whereas Machiavelli's works have been classics for centuries. You might want to take a gander at Discourses on Livy some time. Whereas The Prince deals with Machiavelli's interpretation of "real world" politics, the Discourses actually show what he thought should be. It casts an interesting light on Machiavelli, and is kind of instructive when considering the endless DU arguments on ought and is.

-- Mal

[HereSince1628]

3. "...we should all agree that movement toward a more progressive United States is a goal..."

I think that is sort of the crux of the problem.

We (DU/the base) don't agree among ourselves, and They (The DNC / the DCdems) certainly DO NOT agree with the base that movement toward a more progressive United States is the goal.

[MineralMan]

8. Actually, I believe that all people who are Democrats

have as their goal moving toward a more progressive society. I do not divide the Democratic Party into factions. In fact, that is the subject of this OP. Those divisions are artificial ones, in my opinion.

[HereSince1628]

18. You may not, but the party is divided...at least one group even has adopted names

Democratic Leadership Council aka New Dems (although most usually attributed to that faction's base) aka Third Way.

You are certainly free to see it as a homogenous whole, but I think that denies the reality created by the DLC/New Dem/Third Way.

[MineralMan]

20. For Pete's sake. There are two parties.

This year, there is an election. In every race, a candidate from one or the other party will win. I'm not talking about factions within the Democratic Party. We need to win elections or we lose them. It's election activism I'm talking about. You want to run the Party? That's a different animal, and you can do that, too, if you have the will and enough followers.

For right now, in 2014, I'm interested in just one thing: Getting control of Congress and state legislatures. Party internal politics is not of interest to me just now.

[HereSince1628]

24. Yes, for Mary's sake (lets get in all the saints) the party is divided into FACTIONS

and that is BECAUSE the factions are not working to make America more progressive.

This is what we see. And it isn't everyone bringing something to make mulligan stew.

The DLC was a BY INVITATION ONLY FACTION, very UNDEMOCRATIC, and it's policies were built on the radical idea that the US could be a post-industrial nation of consumers via the counter intuitive notiong that favorable consideration of INTERNATIONAL FINANCING, GLOBALIZATION, and OFF-SHORING would be better for the nation than making sure that all consumers had income to spend

[MineralMan]

63. I commend you for your use of the Caps Lock key.

Whatever the faction, we all need to vote for Democrats in November. That's what my thread is about, you see.

We have no uniform political parties in the United States. We have two major parties. Everyone has to pretty much find a home in one or the other when voting or be irrelevant.

[HereSince1628]

66. IMO, you are an apologist for your own belief, which, my friend, has the cart and horse reversed

Yes, it would be terrific if the dem base was unified to turn out in historic proportions across the US and took both houses of congress and all the state legislatures.

But that isn't going to happen in response to "Vote for ___, because you've got no alternative".

It MIGHT happen in response to "Elect me so I can do ____ for you, no alternative would serve you that way."

[passiveporcupine]

70. voting in blue dogs does not help the progressive cause

But it would still be a bit better than voting in a republican because sometimes they will vote the way we want them to. So we need to work on states that tend to be more conservative, and push progressive politicians there (like Wendy Davis). We can't just give up and say I won't vote because I don't like the options. And voting for a weak third option like the green party is only dividing dem votes so they can't accomplish what they want. At least the tea party is part of the republican party, so they still vote republican...they just try to replace socially centrist republicans with tea party people. That's what we should be doing...replacing blue dog dems with more progressive dems. Not voting for a third party.

[HereSince1628]

74. Fear of the other party isn't a progressive goal, it is an enabler of manipulation.

It is an argument that promotes to leadership people who can be free to take the base for granted.

Erected to the level of unassailable political truth, the notion that d's are better than r's enables democrats to engage in a wide range of unfettered mischief. With unquestioning support, politicians worry about no set of standards, or guiding principles upon which to judge their behavior. There is no expectation that voters will actually hold them accountable.

The canard that the base must first cast loyal votes for the party's candidates purposefully ignores the basic precept of representative government--voters should vote for candidates who are deemed to best represent the voter. Unquestioning support is the mantra of political operatives rather than representatives of the base. It's too often exploited to voter's detriment.

Changing that doesn't require a third party. It does require extinguishing the condescension of the political elites. It does require them to represent the people's, aka populist, interests including progressive goals.

The best way to end that is to deny them of an essential component of their narcissistic demand...over-confidence in the electors' unquestioning support.

[passiveporcupine]

77. I didn't say give unquestioning support

I said we need to work on replacing unsatisfactory politicians from within the party. Like the Tea Baggers have been doing.

[HereSince1628]

79. Yes, I agree with you, I guess I wasn't clear on that.

[passiveporcupine]

80. It's OK

[HereSince1628]

21. All this really happened when the DLC dumped populist economics/labor

Until the DLC arose in the 80's the democrats, as a party, were the labor party, working for economic, social, and workplace progress for everyone.

The pivot away from labor, was a consequence of deliberate choice by the mostly southern politicians who created the DLC.

It was a natural thing in a way. They had had success in pulling northern industries to southern states by providing union free, low regulation, low tax environments for industries. But they tried to generalize their success...at the cost of unions and workers across the nation.

The DLC became tremendously unpopular brand among the disaffected union base...the DLC had to change it's name to get rid of the taint. This really doesn't seem like the story of one party living happily in a tent.

[polichick]

25. Very true.

[polichick]

4. Like corporate elites divide Dem and Republican voters...

in order to protect the status quo and plunder the country.

That's the most dangerous divide and conquer scheme.

[MineralMan]

12. The people still have the power of the ballot box,

if we are willing to use it. It is our weapon, and it is a powerful one, indeed. But, we must use it effectively. We cannot do that unless we act together to accomplish our goals. It's a matter of will and of persuasion, and that's what GOTV activism is about. If we fail in that, we fail utterly.

[polichick]

13. Shouldn't the people of both parties somehow ban together...

against the corporate ptb in both parties?

[MineralMan]

15. Frankly, I don't see such a thing happening.

Lots of Republicans vote against their own interests, as we have seen. But the Republicans are working toward a different goal, in general, from Democrats. All we need do is to get every Democratic voter to the polls, and we'll succeed. We don't need 100% in Congress to have majority control. We need at least 61 votes in the Senate and a decent majority in the House. Then, in 2016, we'll also need to elect a Democrat as President and hold those majorities. What will happen after that will amaze and astound people, and will bring over many who have been deceived by Republican attempts to divide America on racial, national origin, and other grounds.

But, I can't prove that unless we manage to achieve that control of Congress. If we do that, and hold it, we'll move in progressive directions. If we do not do that, we will move in regressive directions. I know which I prefer, and it's not the Republican goals.

We do not have an ideal society, and will will not become a socialist country, either. But, we can move progressively, if we're willing to do so. But it's going to take some serious activism during election years to make that happen. That's the one thing we can control - how much we're willing to work.

[polichick]

17. imo it's important for voters to understand that their party leaders...

don't necessarily have the same agenda as they do - and figure out what to do about it.

It's not just Republican voters being played.

[MineralMan]

19. In every election, there are only two choices with a chance

to win. Choose the one you would prefer. That's the bottom line in US elections.

As for the party leaders, the answer is to become one. And to do that, you have to get involved with the party organization. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming. For the foreseeable future, there will be two major parties. The candidate for one of them wins 99.9% of all elections.

That is the choice we face. If you want to change the party, become the party. That's what is happening here in Minnesota. The old party leadership is old. I'm old. This year, a new batch of young Democrats were elected to district party positions. The old party leaders are retiring. If you want to run the party, start now. Well, it's too late this year, but start early in 2016. Run for party office. It's easy. If you're willing, you're likely to get a position.

If your local Democratic party organization makes it difficult, recruit enough people to change it.

If you think there's going to be a revolution, you're wrong. If there's a revolution from the left, the right will win.

[polichick]

23. To keep this same charade going doesn't make sense...

I agree with Bernie, there MUST be a "political revolution" of some kind. Same ol' same ol' means corporate Dems and Republicans taking turns - and less of everything for the people.

For over thirty years I've been involved with party politics in several different states - I've watched the sell-out of this party up close. No thanks.

[MineralMan]

45. In that case, polichick, I'm not talking to you in the first place.

I'm talking to people who want to establish Democratic control of Congress. If you're not in that group, then this post was not directed at you at all. I direct you to WilliamPitt's most recent post.

[polichick]

48. The op is about divide and conquer tactics...

so I tossed in another - perhaps more critical - way that people in this country are divided and conquered.

oops

[sendero]

68. When it comes to economics, business, entitlements and most regulation...

... there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Third Way type and a Republican. Not any. Whether you can see that or not.

Put another way, real Democrats are worth electing. Fake ones (i.e. third Way), not so much. All the social crap in the world (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is meaningless if you cannot feed and house yourself.

[JoePhilly]

28. Which Republicans are you planning to ban together with?

[polichick]

29. The ones who get that they're being used by corporate entities...

That's the kind of Dems needed too.

[JoePhilly]

31. By what name are they known and how does one find them?

I mean, if "we" are going to ban together with them, "we" are going to need some way to locate and engage them.

So come on, tell us how you think "we" should do it.

Well?

[polichick]

33. Actually, I didn't use the word "we" - and would not include you...

with the voters who get that they're being used.

(Read - and think - more carefully.)

[JoePhilly]

34. You said you wanted Democrats to ban together with Republicans.

How do YOU make that happen?

You claim that you want to change the system, but you clearly have either no plan, or no intent to actually do it.

You think good democrats (like you) should ban together with what I guess you think are "good Republicans".

OK ... which Republicans are they? How will YOU ban together with them?

Where would others reading our exchange, (who are "good Democrats" like you) locate them?

Don't you want those "good democrats" to know how to proceed?

[polichick]

38. I'm not a good Democrat or a bad Democrat...

Quit the party a couple of years ago.

imo clinging to these two parties as if we were on teams is exactly how the corporate powers-that-be continue to advance an agenda that's horrible for the people, the country, and the planet.

It's all about "divide and conquer" - people need to stop playing into their hands.

[JoePhilly]

39. How are you going to ban together with some of the Republicans.

You said that's what should happen.

How are you going to help make it happen?

Or is there a reason you won't answer directly?

[polichick]

43. Obviously, like Bernie Sanders, I think there needs to be...

some sort of "political revolution" (his words) - what that will look like, nobody knows yet.

Could come through a populist movement within the Dem Party - or not.

What's happening now is growing populist momentum.

(If you could relax enough to stop the snark, thinking outside the box might come easier.)

[hfojvt]

40. I had a simple suggestion in 2003

I went to protest the Iraq war. And the protest was loaded with a whole bunch of signage that basically said "Bush sucks".

A true statement to be sure, but supposedly we were there with the message "war sucks". In order to send that message to Bush, we needed to include Republicans, even Bush supporters. Otherwise, it was very easy for Bush to write off the protests as "a gathering of a whole bunch of people who did NOT vote for me in the last election, and will not vote for me in the next one." So why listen to them?

I say that right now my own party, at least at the national level, does NOT represent the bottom 80%. Neither, of course, does the Republican Party.

I would suggest that a candidate should try to draw in the bottom 80%. Until we do that, neither party has an incentive to represent the bottom 80% - because they can keep us divided.

[JoePhilly]

44. So what should a candidate say to those Republicans to get them to support them?

And do they ignore all of the other hot issues like size or the government, healthcare, gays, abortion, guns, size and use of the military?

[flamingdem]

5. My thoughts

as well. November will bring a slew of divide and conquer tactics.

[MineralMan]

16. It starts long before November.

In fact, the election process is already well underway. Here in Minnesota, our caucuses and conventions are already finished at the state legislative district level, and will be finished at the congressional district level in a couple of weeks. From there, it's all campaigning.

Elections are on all year during an election year, and so should activism be.

[flamingdem]

22. Of course you're right

it's in full swing. Just seems premature for DU somehow. That ought to be the focus but it usually happens later - Sept. ish from memory

[MineralMan]

27. That's a shame.

Right now, I'm talking to the candidates for the state legislature in my districts. I talked with Betty McCollum, our congressional representative at our recent district convention for a few minutes. Her main concern in this election year is Democratic turnout, as is mine. She's a shoe-in in the election, and she's concerned that a low turnout could have a bad effect on our election for Governor and the Senate. Both Governor Dayton and Al Franken won in recounts with very slim majorities. If we have a poor turnout, say, in our securely Democratic Congressional District, the votes might not be there for those two major races.

She understands. I understand. It starts now. GOTV starts now, and continues until November. If we are successful, we'll do well. If we're not, it could be 2010 all over again, and nobody in their right mind wants that.

If DU doesn't understand it, that's really unfortunate. That's why I'm pushing GOTV so hard right now. Now is the time for that push at the activism level. We need people to start thinking about and working on GOTV now, not in September. The people who start now will be those leading the effort. It's crucial.

[flamingdem]

30. Absolutely, it's all about GOTV

and with so much as stake we'll have to push hard this year.

[jwirr]

7. We need to pull together or Nate Silver is going to be right. We cannot win when we are trashing our

own candidates all the time. We can talk policy and have differences without killing the messenger.

[MineralMan]

10. Exactly. It is during election years that we must

work together, or we will surely fall apart and lose. That is the goal of the opposition - to make us fail to work together, but to fight with each other. We must not do that, at least with regard to gaining control of Congress.

[HereSince1628]

32. The folks running with D's next to their names, need to provide issues/positions that rally people.

Notice how the generic white boxes of cereal have disappeared? People grab things that grab their attention.

It's the young and the ethnic minorities that tend to low turnout in midterms, yet they tend toward democratic ideals.

To GOTV and realize that advantage in a mid-term victory, the folks running with D's next to their names need to appeal to the young and the ethnic minorities. It's not enough to wear the white cereal box and say, " "I'm the alternative to the republicans howling at the moon".

[JoePhilly]

26. +100

[h2ebits]

35. Thank you for your comments.

Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 12:58 AM - Edit history (1)

A year, maybe 2 now, I was a rabidly angry progressive. I marched with Occupy a number of times and picketed fairly recently against going to war in Syria.

But I really needed to take a deep breath and let go of my anger in order to be constructive. Sometimes we get too close in and can't see the negativity of our words and actions on other people.

Personally, I discovered that my anger was truly getting in the way of my rational thought and, more importantly, my goals and what I would like to see happen in these United States.

[johnp3907]

46. Great post!

You make an important point. I'd suggest you make an OP out of it, but I'm kind of afraid people would attack you angrily!

[h2ebits]

73. Without a doubt and it's really a shame. Thanks for the boost.

[Edim]

36. It's divide and rule,

but divide and conquer is also used.

[malthaussen]

41. Interestingly enough, the literal translation is more appropriate in this case...

... since the objective of the GOP is to rule. But obviously "divide and conquer" is the colloquial translation most understood (or mis-understood, if you like).

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

57. I used Divide and Conquer in my OP title

for that very reason. It's a familiar translation. Not quite literal, but it's what people expect.

[malthaussen]

58. Yeah, I'm hip.

But there are a lot of grammar nazis around, even for Latin grammar.

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

59. For them, I provided the phrase in Latin.

Also Greek, for the true classicists. They can do their own translation.

[beerandjesus]

37. Completely agree, thanks for the post.

[Cleita]

42. Actually, that's what Julius Caesar said in his book Bello Gallico.

But also it is earlier attributed to Phillip II of Macedon. Seems to predate Machiavelli a thousand years and more.

[MineralMan]

47. Yes, thanks, I knew that.

Hence the Latin and Greek translations.

[johnp3907]

49. More of this!

Less of what was in the 3 threads I just trashed.

[MineralMan]

52. You can count on that. I'll be posting many more threads

on DU encouraging a strong GOTV effort on everyone's part.

[Demo_Chris]

50. We are divided by our Dem leaders and the personality cult that enables them. nt

[MineralMan]

54. Uh, not really. You'll notice that they seem to get elected.

And that's what differentiates them from others. That's not where the divisions come from.

[albino65]

51. I totally agree

We must find our activism in the places we live. For me and I believe the rest of Ohioans, the overarching issue is voter suppression. The R/W has successfully gerrymandered our districts and passed laws suppressing the vote to the point that it is a civil rights issue. They have even admitted that the purpose is to prevent African Americans from voting. We have to work to get out the vote. It's not easy when an entire state has been co-opted.

By the way, just when I decide to leave DU, someone like you says something smart and it pulls me back in.

[MineralMan]

55. Thank you.

There are lots of people on DU who understand that GOTV is the primary thing needed during an election year. There are a few who would like you to think it doesn't matter. Read selectively. That's my recommendation.

[treestar]

53. Wish we could do it to them !

Republicans are such zealots. They are never "discouraged." Never do they demand to be "inspired" before they will get off their ass and vote. One thing I will give them. They don't do this shit.

They label liberals lazy, and this crap makes them look right (which makes it perhaps them that is doing it for the most part).

[MineralMan]

56. I don't have time for that. They're actually doing a fair

job on themselves. A bunch of people who have voted Republican in the past are now signed up with the ACA, which Republican politicians have told them was a bad thing. I expect that some will be saying, Really? It seems to be working for me.

I plan to convert some of those to Democratic voters this year. Yes, indeed.

[treestar]

60. Yeah, the timing is good there

the more Faux goes on about people not liking the ACA, the more experience people have with it that goes against that.

[MineralMan]

62. And the message is: Repubicans tried to stop you from getting it.

That's the message I'll be selling to any Republican voters I talk to. I aim for Democratic voters, but I'm always happy to talk to Republicans as well in my precinct. There aren't that many, though, where I live.

[elleng]

61. AND its applied by we Democrats,

against OURSELVES. We really should get our heads screwed on properly and STOP quarreling among ourselves.

[MineralMan]

64. Exactly. Sometimes, though, there are pretenders

in the fold. All to often, they're wolves in sheep's clothing. I suspect there may be some even on DU.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

65. I think not. Even strongly divided, the GOP has found a way to make gains.

Slightly off topic, but fits in with the divide & conquer idea. I am trying to figure out how we can get a Democrat on the November ballot to run against Rohrabacher. We have a woman running as a Republican and another as a Democrat in the 48th CD. He fights as dirty as anybody. (the candidate with the best chance to beat him won't run again because he went after her family. They did nothing wrong, but that doesn't stop a desperate man like Rohrabacher). He's got one of the worst records and reputations in Congress, yet we cannot rid ourselves of him because he has big money behind him and a free pass to be insane. And as of 2011 Our Top Two Primary Act in CA is just sitting there, mostly unnoticed by a majority of voters.

It all comes down this eventually:

Doesn't it actually hurt good candidates unfairly when it comes to selecting the Supreme Court?

And it's going to spread. Would you want it in your state?

http://www.stoptoptwo.org/viewpoints-top-two-primary-hurt-competition-in-the-golden-state/

[Zorra]

67. Never mistake righteous, warranted criticism of authority as an attempt at division.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

69. k and r big-time.

Thank you MM. Excellent post.

That's exactly what they want. Without unity, we can't accomplish anything.

[idendoit]

71. This is an outstanding post. Thank you.

Niccolo's biggest argument in the Art of War was against the use of mercenary armies that were popular at the time and lead to many protracted draws in battle, so that soldiers could earn more. Something we should remember about our own military industrial complex.

[justhanginon]

72. K and R Good thoughtful post.

Working together on the larger goals is where it has to be if there is to be any chance to defeat the people who would send us back to god knows what century.

[randome]

75. Keepin' it real, MineralMan!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

76. I'll do that, thanks.

I'm on DU for just one reason: To try to encourage people to work hard to regain control of this nation by people who do not wish to return it to the 19th century. That's why I'm here. I won't stop.

[spanone]

78. k&r...