A variation of: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H L Mencken

Thanks haseloff,
Divide and conquer. Nothing new. Phillip II of Macedon, Cesar , Napoleon , Obama.
Divide and rule (or divide and conquer, from Latin dīvide et īmpera) in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people.[1]

Traiano Boccalini cites "divide et impera" in La bilancia politica[2] as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War[3] (Dell'arte della guerra),[4] that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.
What do you think Mr haseloff?

the title says it ALL.

And even smart, well-meaning people fall for it.

What amazes me most about divisiveness is they are able to pull it off without significant differences. Politicians promote different policies, but not at all different in proportion to how fired up people get. I really don't understand it. I was with friends telling me they were incensed that politicians were changing the laws forcing employers who provide health plans to provide birth control. I'm just baffled. Do they realize birth control is pretty cheap, like a couple of Big Macs a month? That's what you're all fired up about? And we're talking about making someone pay for it who doesn't want to.

Waste an inefficiency bother me, but most of it's bipartisan. I truly don't get it. I think people who go into are like the annoying people who play politics about which vendor in the supply chain gets blamed for a failure, but these people's full time job really is playing politics. There are also a bunch of people not making money off it who just enjoy being nasty, and public policy is their outlet.