R: Politics is Friend Versus Enemy

Election season is right around the corner. As we gather together in New Haven, it seems proper to ask: what kind of an endeavor is politics? The way that we conceive of politics has implications for how we relate to other human beings. In The Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt claims, “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” This idea is what is known as the friend-enemy distinction.

Those in the affirmative will believe that conflict is a fundamental part of politics. Man is a political animal. There are different identities, beliefs, cultural groups, and communities. They are not compatible with one another. We must not delude ourselves into thinking the “neutrality” enforced by liberalism is anything more than superficial. Beneath the surface, there is conflict waiting to occur. The understanding that everyone and everything must be either friend or enemy is simply a sober political outlook. Should the affirmative want to move beyond that descriptive claim, it might argue that we live in a time of crisis. This moment, more than those in recent memory, calls for a realist approach to politics. Our enemies perpetrate grave evil in the name of “civility” and “progress.” It may make some uncomfortable. It may mean the stakes are higher. But it is simple, not reductionist: politics is friend versus enemy.

The negative will reject thinking in binaries. Politics organizes life in common. It can’t involve something as basic as one or the other. Those in the affirmative are defending a simplistic realism. We harm ourselves and our communities by seeing politics as a warlike undertaking. Those in the negative will have more faith in liberalism and its proceduralism. It is an ugly thing, after all, for us to view the man who disagrees with us on a particular cause as our enemy. We ought to remember that in politics there can be strange bedfellows, coalition building, and compromise. But that omits the most important consideration. There is a place for charity, for love, in politics. In fact, it is essential. The negative can still understand politics as involving friends and enemies, but for them that will not be too significant. Without redemptive love, we cannot bring about justice. Accordingly, those in the negative recognize the importance of charity in politics.

How should we approach political obstacles? Are we in a time of crisis? In politics, when does charity go too far? How does our outlook depend on what level of government we are discussing? Or the type of regime? Is liberalism to blame?