I don't think that they do so by creating divisions between left and right. Quite the contrary. They would like nothing better than to neutralize even the moderate left through compromise with the right. The right wing media, especially in America from what I gather, like to portray the 'left' as divisive; as refusing to 'come together' with the right; as placing ideology above country. And they also of course tend to portray the Democrats as more left than by international standards they are. (I have come across people proposing a 'Moderate Party' between the extremes of left and right - hello, the Democrats *are* the Moderate Party!)

Powerful people do like to exploit divisions between white and black, men and women, Jews and Muslims, working class people in jobs and the unemployed, etc. I often say that people in different minority and disadvantaged groups must, in the words of Benjamin Franklin in a somewhat different context, 'all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately.' But joining 'populist' movements that include the right will only encourage and exaggerate these divisions, as one of the main points of right-wing ideology is the creation of scapegoats.

It is a common myth in this context that left and right, at least among those who are not rich, are divided solely by 'social wedge issues'. Even here, if 'social issues' involves racism and the scapegoating of social minorities, there is no room for compromise. But in any case, the biggest differences between left and right are on *economic* issues. Two of the most key issues of most 'populist' right-wing movements are:

(1) Government is tyranny, or likely to become so; or at the very best is inefficient, wasteful and probably fraudulent. Therefore public services are a bad thing. At the extreme: If you allow, for example, public health care, the next thing that will happen is that the government will declare martial law and herd you all into death camps!

(2) The ordinary hard-working taxpayer is being exploited and defrauded by benefit claimants and the unemployed 'workshy'. The 'bloated welfare state' pampers such people, and is responsible for our economic problems!

(1) seems commonest in America; (2) is common everywhere.

And there is no common ground between left and right on such views.

'Powerful people' are themselves divided and not a monolith, and tend to battle with each other for power, causing the less powerful to end up as literal or metaphorical collateral damage. But one thing that generally does unite them is an opposition to a more egalitarian society where they might have to give up some of their own power in favour of poorer people and minority groups. As such, they would like the left to compromise with the right, whether within the establishment (Blair-Bush; Clegg-Cameron); or outside it (anti-establishment leftists collaborating with teabaggers or the equivalents in other countries).

To clarify: Not all people who vote for right wing parties are truly right wing in their basic attitudes. Many do so just out of family tradition; some do so because economic desperation leads them to vote for *any* party other than whoever are the current incumbents. There is certainly plenty of room for trying to win over people who currently vote for right wing parties. But there is no room for considering any compromise with right-wing ideas and viewpoints.