Last week I wrote about the “old slice and dice”, a term I coined to describe a political strategy in which politicians cut funding for the welfare state in order to privatize it. Right-wing politicians in particular do this under the guise of government being “inefficient”, even as they actively create the conditions for this “inefficiency” by reducing government funding. It’s a bit of a catch-22.
This week I would like to talk about another popular strategy known as “divide and conquer”. Essentially, the technique involves sowing the seed of dissent among the general population so that politicians can then “capture” the vote of a particular group. Once in office, politicians then enact policies that benefit them (and their wealthy donors) at the expense of voters.
Trump’s attack on intellectuals has the advantage of fostering mistrust for experts who might try to warn the public about his threat to democracy.
Normally, voters would simply vote for the “other party” during the next election (or other parties if you live in a functional democracy), but this depends on two factors: first of all, that there will actually be a next election — a point I’ll come back to in a future article — and secondly, that there is even a viable alternative to vote for in the first place.
If the divide and conquer strategy is successful, it can vilify “the other” so much that the idea of engaging with — let alone voting for — this “other” simply becomes unfathomable, leading to widespread civil unrest.
How The United States Came Apart
You may have never considered it before but wealth inequality, privatization, and car-dependency separate people into bubbles, making it unlikely that those from different income groups — let alone different political parties — will ever come into contact with one another.
The lack of “third places” in the United States — a place where people from the community can get together — leads to mistrust and even paranoia. This physical isolation is only worsened by the “intellectual isolation” brought on by social media algorithms.
As always, I blame the economy — and the inability of politicians to enact real change — for the rise of the far-right in the United States. As manufacturing began to decline, the US transitioned to a service economy based around health, education, finance and technology, all of which are competitive industries, often requiring not just one but multiple college degrees.
The price of higher education in the US — not to mention the foregone income from pursuing a degree in the first place — has made it increasingly difficult for those not born into wealth to compete in these sectors. At the same time, we see not only fewer jobs available for those without a degree, but degraded conditions for the few that do remain.
Once in office, politicians enact policies that benefit them (and their wealthy donors) at the expense of voters.
There is a general trend of American corporations monopolizing industries, suppressing wage growth and giving the additional profits to shareholders, largely made possible through unregulated finance. You just need to look at the explosion of CEO-to-worker pay over the last few decades to see this.
But no politician in their right mind would ever openly admit this, yet they still need to find a way to “capitalize” on the frustrations of the working class in order to win their vote. So Trump and his corporate supporters use a kind of “bait-and-switch” or scapegoating strategy, such as targeting immigrants, in order to give the illusion that their interests — corporate interests — align with those of the working class.
So, they blame elites — the “technocrats” if you will — but not finance or tech elites, “intellectual” elites. The United States has long had a streak of anti-intellectualism, but as education has once again become a class issue — and those in fields such as academia and journalism come across as very far removed from the struggles of working people — this provides a convenient opportunity for backlash.
Trump’s attack on intellectuals also has the advantage of fostering mistrust for experts who might try to warn the public about this threat to democracy. His attack on “wokeness” — and the academic and activist spaces from which it emerges — also serves a similar purpose, a means of dismantling “inefficient” and “divisive” diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
It almost reflects a kind of Stockholm Syndrome in which workers continue to identify more with the interests of their employers rather than themselves.
This, of course, appeals to working class MAGA voters, who are overwhelmingly white, Christian and male and thus more likely to believe that such programs are a waste of economic resources. More importantly, however, it benefits corporate donors who no longer have to fund programs that might dip into their profit margins.
Trump and his supporters have waged a war against environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives for exactly the same reason. Not only does this discourse act upon a legitimate concern among many in the working class who fear losing their jobs, it also benefits corporations who might be forced to pay out smaller dividends to shareholders due to stricter environmental regulations.
All in all, it almost reflects a kind of Stockholm Syndrome unique to the United States in which workers continue to identify more with the interests of their employers rather than themselves. Yet divide and conquer or “us versus them” strategies of these sort always bring about catastrophe sooner or later, a kind of “end times fascism” as Naomi Klein has pointed out.
Not to be a Doomer, But…
Let’s start with the threat of economic collapse. It might not seem relevant, but Trump’s attacks on foreign students will disrupt the enormous inflow of capital that these students represent, as they not only disproportionally come from wealthy backgrounds — income that they spend in the United States — but they also pay higher tuition prices than American students.
Trump’s attacks on universities not only threaten the very lucrative business of higher education — a key component of the US economy — but it will also likely lead to a brain drain. His attack on scientists in particular, which can be understood as the culmination of decades of corporate climate change denial, will have disastrous long-term effects for innovation and competitiveness internationally.
Much of the US economy has been propped by up foreign investment, the result of an over-reliance on cheap imports and a highly developed financial system.
But there is a much greater economic threat looming, that of artificial intelligence (AI). If the “Big, Beautiful Bill” does indeed pass the Senate, it will ban states from regulating AI, adding to the already very real threat of mass unemployment. If the United States enters into a war with Iran — and especially if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz — oil prices will explode, perhaps bringing about a cost of living crisis greater than what we witnessed during the Covid-19 pandemic.
And what happens if American corporations have no consumers to sell their products to anymore because they’ve laid off all their workers? What happens if the euro begins to replace the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency as investors pull their money out of the country?
Much of the US economy has been propped by up foreign investment, the result of an over-reliance on cheap imports and a highly developed financial system. But what happens if former trading partners or allies no longer wish to do business with the United States, especially if the euro or another rival currency replaces the dollar?
It was thought in the years after World War II that shared economic prosperity would dampen the potential for war. In fact, it was much of the motivation behind what would later become the European Union. But the pursuit of power often blinds men, a reality that we are currently witnessing with the War in Ukraine and Israel’s attack on Iran, both of which severely threaten the global economy.
During World War II, the threat of a common enemy — and the hope of a life after the war — helped to bond members of resistance movements.
The world has obviously faced devastation many times before, but even throughout periods such as The Great Depression and the Second World War, there was still a feeling that life would improve. In fact, during World War II, the threat of a common enemy — and the hope of a life after the war — helped to bond members of resistance movements.
But who is the common enemy today? And what do we still hope for as a society? Is it for a better future for our children, a livable future? Or is it one dominated by corporate control of the economy, even if it brings about environmental devastation and world war, with billionaires retreating to their multi-million dollar bunkers as they leave the rest of us to deal with the aftermath?
The only way to bring about the former is to fight against the latter. Otherwise, we will just continue to divide and conquer until the end of the world.