Substantive on "The Concept of the Political"

It is often joked that “politician” is Latin for bloodsucking creature. Although this is a popular misconception, I cannot entirely say that I disagree with this parasitic description of politicians, and in extension politics. Schmitt’s description of the “political” touches upon the darker side of politics by characterizing the “political” purely as a “friend-enemy” relationship that can potentially escalate into a war. This relationship need not consist of two friends that consider each other to be “aesthetic” or “moral,” or by two enemies that are total opposites. Such conditions would surely aid the legitimacy of a conflict, but they are not necessary. What is necessary is the existence of a common threat or foe. For example, both the UK and the US allied with the USSR during WWII even though barely twenty years ago both countries had sent soldiers against the communist movement and Roosevelt had only recently recognized the USSR. However, all three nations had the common enemy of Nazi Germany. When this threat was extinguished, however, the Cold War between the US and its’ Western allies and the USSR and its’ satellite nations soon began. Although the sides of the conflict were based on ideologies and morals, neither were preserved during the Cold War. For example, the US sided with totalitarian regimes in South America in order to weaken the totalitarian USSR. The USSR, while preaching against the exploitive capitalist West, had a government plagued by greed and corruption. Often ideals are a pretense or a secondary consideration when it comes to defeating a foe. I disagree with Scmitt, though, that the friend-enemy relation is the entirety of politics. Sometimes a foe is not an actual threat, but a means of scapegoating. Wars can also be waged for the personal gain of a leader at the expense of an unsuspecting opponent. Besides this, Schmitt fails to realize that a ‘foe” does not need to be a person or escalate into a war in order to unify a side or create a “friend-enemy” dynamic. For example, there have been benevolent bi-partisan efforts against drugs, poverty and other social issues in the US. Recently the world has united to help aid Haiti, viewing the destruction caused by the recent earthquake as a “foe.” In a non-political situation, I personally know of bickering friends who have reunited in order to comfort a mutual friend with a terminally ill mother. Unity against a foe does not have to have a negative connotation or even be violent. Schmitt also fails to realize that sometimes ideologies and morals prevent people from looking at the world from a “friend-enemy” lens. There are some people who would rather sacrifice themselves than harm another human being. In my own life I’ve personally helped people who have seriously harmed me multiple times even though I knew it was a futile gesture. I could have emotionally crippled this person and protected myself, but I did not. Instead I offered aid even though it was disadvantageous and destructive to me. Politics and human nature is not constituted by antagonism. Rather, it is a small facet of both.
In terms of Schmitt’s “other,” I would argue that we do not need another species to have a perfect “other” and that an alien species may actually be similar to humans and thus cannot be a perfect “other.” Humans have a tendency to dehumanize their opponents to the point that they are no longer humans. Even as children we call certain people “bullies” and feel little remorse if they get in trouble or are berated by others. If someone fights back and hurts bully its’ ok as they are evil and they deserve it because they’re a mean bully. If a terrorist is killed, do we feel remorse? Do we view them as human? We might feel more disgust if we witnessed a sheep being killed more than a member of the Taliban. I feel that even within humanity we humans may view others almost as aliens or another species. On the other hand, certain alien species may be very “human.” Extraterrestrials may be humanoids who talk like humans, think like humans and act like humans. If this were to happen, they could not be a perfect “other” to be antagonized. However, in films such as Starship Troopers, where the aliens are seen as non-sentient insects, extraterrestrials can serve as good “others.” In the film, the threat of insect attacks helps keep an authoritarian federation strong, despite several defeats. The Formics in Ender’s Game also serve a similar purpose, and once they have been defeated the alliance in the plot falls into disarray. I’d like to reiterate a point I made in another blog post. There can exist alliances for the betterment of humanity that are not formed around a “friend-enemy” dynamic. Today the UN does charitable work throughout the world and the EU has interconnected many countries together to the point that war is considered to be impossible between Western European nations. Our future does not need to be characterized by an authoritarian federation. Instead we can strive for an organization like the Federation from Star Trek, which is a viable goal to strive for… a political entity based on self improvement and peaceful cooperation with others.