Diversionary War Theory stems from belief that unpopular rulers ignite international conflicts in a bid to stay in the national driver's seat.  While many scholars keep questioning the manipulative intent of political leaders, both the supporters and the opponents of the controversial hypothesis focus exclusively on diversionary "foreign" policy.

In search of empirical support for their assumption, academicians may be overdosing on debates, but a fed up Joe Sixpack — the involuntary test subject in the political lab — won't be burning daylight.  Continuously "miserable" Joe will immediately point to a new theory, or rather a common practice of the American Left: Divisionary Domestic Policy.

Unable to grab the steering wheel, the leftist elite opts for the role of a backseat driver, loud and obnoxious enough to make a smooth ride impossible.  Feet on the media dashboard, clueless about direction, and messing with controls — that's the way the Left rolls.  Determined to be the driver's distraction, and hoping to perpetuate their free ride, the undemocratic "Democrats" are totally indifferent to the fact that their political road rage and allegations of international traffic "collusions" are trashing the country.

The key figures of Diversionary Domestic Policy have been juggling detours with red herrings, ever since Donald Trump was given the green light to drive the country in a different direction and (a scary thought!) to examine in close detail the financial dealings of the previous administration.  To avoid accountability, staying under the radar wouldn't be enough, so our fiends and their cronies have been working around the clock to keep the new government busy, and on the defensive.

Harassment of an outsider of a president (Donald Trump or whoever else would "dare" to be elected) is consequent to the 13th of Saul Alinsky 's "Rules for Radicals" — "go after people and not institutions" — but "freezing" the new kid on the block is not the main objective.  The manipulation tactics of evasion and diversion have the same goal, no matter if on a personal or a political level.  As Dr. George Simon put it: "what the issue-dodger and subject-changer really want is to advance their own agenda at the expense of yours, while simultaneously managing your impression of them."

Confident that the media do apply Chomsky's "keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity," the Left tries to rationalize Machiavellianism by the blame game and hopes to run the progressive plantation long enough to ban freedom.  Why would America's scholars prefer to squabble about past episodes of divisional foreign policy instead of warning the public about the dangers of domestic divisionary policy today?  Is it because "[t]oday, there are probably more Marxists on the faculty of our elite colleges than there are in all of Russia and Eastern Europe" (Dinesh D'Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative), or are they simply afraid of retribution from those who believe that the end justifies the means?

The use of evasion and diversion techniques is blatant.  The Left's drive-in theater offers only a rerun of the same boring movie.  After watching excerpts, every critical thinker will be able to summarize the Left's political scenario and abbreviate it to "my way or highway."