Divide and Rule

[Sirona]

Based upon threads concerning school mass shootings, I think I may have understood the blame game between Republicans and Democats, at least as far as the Republican side is concerned. However, I am only an unwashed foreigner, so take it with a grain of salt.

Well, I think, the Republicans always want more guns on the street so that the “good citizens“ (middle class?) feel even more scared and buy more guns to protect themselves, and so on, a vicious circle comes into being.

Republicans at least condone firearms getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit, even though Republicans appeared to cause the problem by eliminating social programs for the destitute, while representing the interests of their clientel, which are not the destitute.

The person who now still has property sees it as a necessity to defend what he still owns against attackers, and also does not see why he should share those things with others ("socialism") given the fact that he defends those things with tooth and claw.

The blame for the existence / increase of criminals and other “dangerous elements” is shifted to the Democrats, who defend themselves against such accusations, and so another vicious circle is created.

In Latin, the principle is called “Divide et impera”

Divide and rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In politics, 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 to prevent a rebellion against the elites or the people implementing the strategy. The goal is either to pit the lower classes against themselves to prevent a revolution, or to provide a desired solution to the growing discord that strengthens the power of the elites."

 

[Revoltingest]

...Republicans always want more guns on the street so that the “good citizens“ (middle class?) feel even more scared and buy more guns to protect themselves, and so on, a vicious circle comes into being.

This doesn't describe any Pub I know.

Republicans at least condone firearms getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit....

Again, an erroneous speculation.

The person who now still has property sees it as a necessity to defend what he still owns against attackers, and also does not see why he should share those things with others ("socialism") given the fact that he defends those things with tooth and claw.

Socialism is about government owning the means of production.
"Sharing" is common in capitalism, eg, charity, government services
paid for by taxes.

The blame for the existence / increase of criminals and other “dangerous elements” is shifted to the Democrats, who defend themselves against such accusations, and so another vicious circle is created.

In Latin, the principle is called “Divide et impera”

Division is a consequence of each side trying to fire up its base.
As a goal, it would achieve nothing in a system with more than 1 political party

 

[Heyo]

Well, I think, the Republicans always want more guns on the street so that the “good citizens“ (middle class?) feel even more scared and buy more guns to protect themselves, and so on, a vicious circle comes into being.

Republicans at least condone firearms getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit, even though Republicans appeared to cause the problem by eliminating social programs for the destitute, while representing the interests of their clientel, which are not the destitute.

That's only half true. It's the gun manufacturers who want to sell guns to everyone. And they have lobbyists. So every politician who takes their money votes in their favor, pubs and dems. (But there seem to be a few more pubs who are corrupt.)