Social Conflict: Do politicians solve it, or create it

Definitions of both politics and government can be related to social conflict. And we note that political scientists assume we will always have social conflict. Optimistically, we think that politicians might use government to solve social conflict? Might politicians also be interests in creating social conflict?

Consider a speech Karl Rove, chief advisor to President Bush gave on Friday, 1.20.06. As reported in Saturday's New York Times:

Mr. Rove's speeches this early in an election year have proved to be accurate predictors of what Republican candidates would say in the fall, and thus every seat in the ballroom at a downtown Washington hotel was filled. He lacerated Democrats for what he described their "cut and run" policy on Iraq, for blocking a renewal of the broad antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, and for challenging the legality of the administration's widespread use of warrantless wiretaps in the face of widespread criticism.

...

"The United States faces a ruthless enemy, and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in," Mr. Rove said. "President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

Might on consider this merely "drawing contrasts" between the two parties? The problem with that explanation is found in the paragraph that came between these two in the original story:

Mr. Rove made no mention of Republican opposition to both the Patriot Act and the surveillance program, which has posed a political problem for this White House, while he laid out his case against the Democrats, speaking rapidly.

That is, the "contrast" between Democrats and Republicans is not nearly as great as his speech suggests.

And I wager that we will hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Rove in the next months condemn those who "play politics with national security."