you can't abolish half of a thing. abolishing half of slavery still leaves you with slavery. you're confused about some basic terms here. and if you're using a

you can't abolish half of a thing. abolishing half of slavery still leaves you with slavery. you're confused about some basic terms here. and if you're using a broad enough notion of divisiveness, then anything is divisive, including tan suits and dijon mustard. so divisiveness as you're using the term is not a property of the relation between the constituency and the political object (policy/slogan/etc.), but it's instead a tool that social engineers can use to create antagonism between populations. for example, abortion appears to be an extremely divisive issue because of the way the issue has been socially engineered, but if you look at the data, a large majority of americans agree on the vast majority of abortion cases. it's the edge cases and disagreements on the rationale for/against abortion that are used to create the appareance of divisiveness.