It’s hard to articulate, but it’s that classing of a worthy foe or something. Like people say “say what you will about x but he does y good” (something said by someone about Rommel by Patton (at least in his movie))in a way that’s meant to sound begrudging but just makes them sound like they want to be them if you get me
Witness it once in a blue moon
Because they treat politics like a team sport
People genuinely without political awareness do not believe they have existential enemies. They think all it takes to change a Nazi’s mind is a sound and well-structured argument, for the sake of which they are willing to let them talk back and entertain their talking points, as if anyone ever becomes a Nazi on the basis of rational consideration. This wishful thinking may be exacerbated by a common liberal fallacy that balanced equals unbiased and that unbiased equals true or trustworthy.
Right-wingers on the other hand do everything they can to try to rehabilitate and excuse even the worst figures amongst their ranks, because it broadens the acceptance their ideology can find. If someone points out Rommel’s colonial aspirations and murderous exploits to expand the reach of Hitler’s empire into Africa, they fall back on saying they’re not an expert and did not know about his crimes, even immediately after telling their “nuanced” stories about him.
I mean, the politically ignorant you talk about still have their own ideas of “existential enemies.” They just all happen to be bogeymen- “evil seeseepee” Chinese getting uppity and resisting the “rightful world order” of western diktat, “Putler” and Russia acting “unprovoked,” nebulous ideas of nefarious brown Muslims hating the west for “their freedoms,” uppity “authoritarian, backwards” Africans/Asians/Latinos rejecting the “benevolent” and “enlightened” west’s meddling and looting, and of course all the nasty godless gommunist “tankies” whose existence and critique reveals inconvenient truths about their empire and privilege.
The politically ignorant (willful or otherwise) in the west absolutely do have their own ideas of “existential enemies.” And in settler-societies (as a Canadian- as someone who has seen just how the First Nations are treated and seen in this country) that understanding of “existential enemies” extends also to the indigenous peoples (or at least, any of those who are not totally defeated and “put in their place,” who seek their own autonomy and/or genuine equality and reparations/land back/etc). Because they understand- subconsciously or otherwise- that their very existence and dignity poses a challenge to the continued settler thieving and squatting and exposes their guilt.
The politically ignorant across the west fall near entirely into two camps- those sheltered, ignorant, or genuinely “apolitical”/nihilistic who have not had their understanding of the world challenged yet or who have washed their hands of the matter (understanding just how crooked the system is and leaving it at that)- and those who are willfully ignorant and hateful towards any or all of the groups mentioned above or more.
Though- then, I suppose I am talking about right-wingers, as such people are effectively and inherently right-wingers (even when they pretend to be “progressive,” and when they entirely wrongly consider themselves left). But these are indeed a very large portion of the “politically ignorant” in the west…
Communists actually are existential enemies to the existing liberal order, so that one isn’t just a bogeyman
While I agree, I’d also say- all those I mentioned above (people desiring their own sovereignty, security, their own resources and the fruits of their labor, those desiring equality, and those who just so happen to be indigenous) also are existential enemies to the existing liberal order as well; the “liberal order” is maintained through stolen land, exploited labor, and rivers of blood, and all those seeking to end any of the above are inherent enemies.
This is the end result of genocidal, hegemonic, thieving and arrogant liberalism; the very nature of human dignity, and the desire for it from the exploited masses stands against them. There’s not a single enemy out there that they did not create the conditions for, through their barbarism; communists included of course, as it is their oppression of the proletariat across the globe, and beyond that their imperialism (the highest form of capitalism, of course) that has created such conditions that were responsible for every communist uprising, and every creation of every AES state out there.
If you ask me, “humanity” is an existential enemy to the liberal order; all those with decency, and all those who desire decency, are their enemies, whether they have recognized it yet or not. They have made enemies of everything and everyone, save for themselves and their collaborators; and at this point I think it can be said that they (the liberals) are even the enemy of the human species altogether, as they work to plunge the world yet again into a world war (and this time, a nuclear armageddon), as they rapidly destroy the planet’s ecosystem, and as they proliferate all of the most dangerous ideologies (fascism, religious extremism, tribalism, etc) and play with all sorts of horrific WMDs (and are quite possibly the cause for cv19, AIDS, etc).
Well said, I didn’t read your comment that closely
Because it’s completely devoid of any class.
“respect your opponent” becomes a different reality when your opponent is the landlord threatening to evict your family.
“respect your opponent” becomes a different reality when your opponent is the police stripping you down looking for an ounce in the middle of the road.
I think it stems from the civility nonsense. The idea of ‘‘bipartisanship’’, where 2 parties ‘‘agree to disagree’’ but we all know that they work hand in glove, and that is what must be preserved overall, the continuity of liberal democracy.
Liberals know (sometimes only subconsciously) that other liberals are not their real enemies
deleted by creator
Respecting your opponent is easy when both parties share the same ultimate goals and really only differ on what methods think are best. It would be like us when comparing the DPRK’s more stalwart approach towards adhering to socialism vs China’s more pragmatic approach to existing in a Western dominated world.
my hot take is that there’s not many individuals that they consider “people”, so…given that they some of those extraordinary individuals still clasify in their “ranking of subhumans” but are so different to their stereotypes, they’re seen as “opponents”
That’s only because they themselves want to be respected and they want those they like to be respected. They will never actually respect those they don’t like but they will demand respect regardless because they are “always right” in their minds.
When police do good cop/bad cop interrogations, they good cop and bad cop hang out together afterwards.
When governments manipulate you with a good party/bad party electoral circus, the good party and bad party also hang out with each other afterwards.
Of course they respect one another.
Yeah, imagine respecting other people, even if they have different opinions or opposing goals. Wild concept.
I don’t have to respect people who don’t see me as human and want to remove my rights, can you imagine doing that?
Which is fair, I don’t respect extremists either, and I’m not saying everyone deserves your respect. However, society is all about limiting some rights to protect others. Inevitably there will always be different opinions on how to strike that balance. Not all these differences are worth fighting about, often it is much more worthwhile to talk to each other and work out a compromise. And that’s much easier with some level of mutual respect.
Well in context we’re talking about people who are willing to sacrifice people like me for the sake of civility and “hearing them out”.
deleted by creator
Nah, I tried but I couldn’t imagine that. Just kept imagining putting them all in a gulag again.
