At Politico Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster point out, correctly in my view, the role of what they call “negative partisanship”:
Over the past few decades, American politics has become like a bitter sports rivalry, in which the parties hang together mainly out of sheer hatred of the other team, rather than a shared sense of purpose. Republicans might not love the president, but they absolutely loathe his Democratic adversaries. And it’s also true of Democrats, who might be consumed by their internal feuds over foreign policy and the proper role of government were it not for Trump. Negative partisanship explains nearly everything in American politics today—from why Trump’s base is unlikely to abandon him even if, as he once said, he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, to why it was so easy for vulnerable red-state Democrats to resist defecting on the health care bill.
Consider, for instance, that while Trump’s approval ratings have lately been in the mid- to upper 30s, he has maintained support of the overwhelming majority of Republican voters—around 80 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll. And that’s what matters to him and to most Republican members of Congress. The president understands that as long as that Republican base remains loyal to him, he is unlikely to face a serious challenge from GOP members of the House and Senate. He also knows that the surest way to keep the support of his base is by attacking Democrats, especially the two most prominent leaders of the Democratic Party—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What looks like an unhealthy Twitter obsession over “Crooked Hillary†and her emails is more likely a team-building exercise—a shrewd effort to keep his party focused on their shared enemy: Democrats. And so far, it’s working for him.
This hostile and confrontational style of politics is a by-product of the growth in negative partisanship within the American electorate. Our research has shown that since the 1980s, supporters of both major parties, including independents who just lean toward one party or the other, have grown to dislike the opposing party and its elected leaders more than they like their own party and its elected leaders. And judging from opinion polls, that trend reached a new high in 2016—an election dominated by negative feelings toward both major-party candidates.
Lest you be confused the increase in “negative partisanship” is a fine example of misdirection. Politicians who not only make a lot of promises but fail to deliver results but actively work against the interests of their supporters and constituents, avoid being booted out of their jobs by the latch that the two major political parties have on the electoral process and by directing the ire of voters against the horrors of the other party rather than against them. They then proceed to use their safe seats to ensure job continuity and to enrich themselves, their families, and their friends.
I know of no better example of those warned about in the New Testament:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
than today’s political leadership.
Politics has become the new opiate of the people.
I’m glad to see someone else grasps the misdirection ploy. It’s the oldest trick in the book, as your quote demonstrates. And they have plenty of consultants out there to poll and test wedge issues.
Separately, but related, I think it’s a failure in media coverage to see that, after multiple administrations attempting to gather more power in the executive, and multiple spineless Congresses only to willing to let it happen, that Trump is calling out Congress to do their jobs and not just punt tough issues to the Executive. DACA is an example. Cynically described as a political ploy but really just Civics 101 on how the system was designed to work. Similarly, this mornings “budget deal” cut without Republican input was no doubt Trumps way of telling Ryan and McConnell they have tiny balls and to corral their horses or be rendered irrelevant.