“Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres.”

For those non-Romans among us, this is the opening line in Caesar’s Commentaries, which was primarily a work of self-promotion and political propaganda intended to buck up the poll numbers (if they had had them) of one Gaius Julius Caesar, described in Wikipedia as a “Roman politician and general who played a critical role in the events that led to the demise of the Roman republic and the rise of the Roman empire.”

In English, the words translate as “Gaul is divided in three parts.” They precede a description of Caesar’s conquest of much of modern-day France. They also provide a tip-off to how he intended to get the job done: Divide and Conquer.

No one is comparing the present tenant in the White House to Caesar. However, the strategy favored by the 2,117-year-old Roman would-be dictator seems strikingly similar to that apparently favored by our own latter-day-First Citizen: Divide and Conquer.

In a nation as diverse as our own, it is unlikely there is universal agreement on anything, even something as self-evident as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Someone always has another interpretation of the facts as they perceive them to be.

We are a nation of factions adrift on a sea of differences.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this. It was recognized by the founders of the American republic as being as being natural in the human condition. Much of their effort in drafting a workable constitution went into how to take factions into account, and yet find a means to bridge seemingly irreconcilable differences without wrecking the finely balanced constitutional protections provided to guarantee the right to hold often radically divergent views within a, nevertheless, united republic.

The office of president was designed, in large part, to play a major role in protecting the republic from the divisive human tendencies of its own citizens.

The presidency was conceived as being a unifying force – an entity that all factions could respect and, because of that respect, find common ground despite profound differences on individual issues.

When a president chooses to be other than a force for unity, the entire constitutional construct wobbles on its axis, and threatens to spin out of control.

Nine months into his term, we appear to have a president whose default is to divide, rather than to unify.

Be it pitting his supporters against his non-supporters, straights against gays, citizens against non-citizens, racial groups against other racial groups, countries against other countries, or even National Football League fans against NFL players, the president seems most adept at creating chaos.

More disturbing is the fact he appears to be most comfortable operating within the chaos he himself has instigated. Suggesting solutions do not appear to be his preference.

This is not to say he doesn’t make legitimate points. Sometimes he does.

For example, people of all ideological hues are understandably upset with a political establishment that seems most interested in perpetuating itself. It appears to be a political process hijacked by career politicians for their own personal benefit.

But beyond using the problem to whip up public fervor, has he offered any alternative beyond incendiary rhetoric and schoolyard bombast calculated to increase the frenzy to an even higher white-hot heat?

Is his tough talk only a ruse to divert and divide the public’s attention from something else?

I realize Howard County voted for this president by a wide margin, so mine is a minority opinion. I understand many would argue that the man should be given a chance. But with nine months to gestate this presidency, is there any indication that what we get in the future will be any better than that which we have seen every day so far?

With respect to those voters, I pose some questions:

While Caesar divided Gaul into pieces and, thereby, destroyed it piecemeal, is death by division going to be the fate of our present republic?

If this president’s tenure in office should fundamentally change the nature of our republic, what comes after?

For Caesar, “Divide and Conquer” meant taking advantage of divisions within the enemy. What does “Divide and Conquer” mean if it is the leader stoking divisions within our own country?

Who does this “Divide and Conquer” strategy benefit? Republicans? No, not in the long run. White Americans? No, not in the long run. The man himself? For a while. Then who? Are we, the American people, serving as Caesar’s Gaul, a momentary triumph that dooms our great American republic to the ambitions of our adversaries, not the least of which is a resurgent Russian bear?

I have no answer, but then again, I never expected to have reason to raise the question.