German Philosopher Carl Schmitt’s words, “Tell me who your enemy is, and I will tell you who you are,” rings true for modern Conservatives in today’s politically charged environment. In The Concept of the Political, written during the Weimar Republic’s decline, Schmitt illuminated a stark reality: Beneath all political discourse lies the fundamental categories of friend and enemy. Schmitt argues that people organize to protect a way of life, and those who agree are seen as friends. Those who rise against that group to destroy their way of life are seen as foes. When friends and enemies are identified, that’s when something becomes “political.” Enemies in this paradigm aren’t merely those whom one disagrees with or is even seen as morally bad. Instead, they are those who pose an existential threat to one’s way of life.
Since Donald Trump’s dramatic escalator descent onto the political stage in 2015, the refrain that “everything is political” has echoed among more timid, conflict-averse conservatives. Since Trump, the narrative goes, every facet of our lives has been made into political statements. If one buys a Hazelenut Machiato with Soy Milk from their non-binary Starbucks barista named Aspen, then they’re probably a “liberal-beta-soy boy.” All while “manly” conservatives hold fast to their deeply held political convictions by purchasing their caffeine from the veteran-owned Black Rifle Coffee Company. If someone eats vegan, which they’ll be sure to tell you about, they probably lean left; meanwhile, if someone eats the carnivore diet, you can be sure they’re a health-conscious conservative who probably lifts weights and listens to the likes of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson.
Since Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and its transformation into a sanctuary for conservative voices, there has been a mass exodus from Twitter to platforms such as Instagram’s Threads. Moreover, in response to perceived censorship, platforms like Rumble and Kick have emerged as conservative alternatives to YouTube.
Due to widespread distrust of “the other side,” many Americans have effectively isolated themselves within media echo chambers of confirmation bias. Language now is even politicized as seen through the hotly contested gender pronouns debate and the destruction of traditional terms like “vaccine,” “woman,” “herd-immunity,” “gender,” and “sexual preference” to appease the leftist pro-regime audience. Then science became “The Science” under the infamous reign of Dr. Fauci, and Americans found themselves divided into two distinct camps: those who wore masks and those who did not (shirts and skins, anyone?). A person’s entire political ideology seemed discernible merely by the presence or absence of a mask. This division was further compounded in many cities, where vaccine cards swiftly became politicized, transforming into symbols of allegiance to — or dissent against — the prevailing regime.
Most Americans, right or left, will consider Trump’s escalator descent as the moment when “everything became political.” However, a closer look would suggest that Trump merely served as the smoke alarm in an already blazing house. Trump realized that politics wasn’t simply a genteel debate club but rather a realm where distinct factions, with their allies and adversaries, clash. He underscored this perspective by frequently labeling the mainstream media as “the enemies of the people.” Both Schmitt and Trump grasp a fundamental truth: Not every divide can be bridged through dialogue alone. Insisting on the absence of conflict in the face of evident discord isn’t a virtue; it’s a form of denialism.
For decades, the Left has viewed politics as a battleground with two distinct sides, believing that the right must be utterly vanquished. This comprehensive defeat, in their view, necessitated the systemic infection of every institution: from the media and government to education, the economy, religion, cultural celebrations, and even the fabric of the family. Not one would be spared. This ascendancy wasn’t a stroke of luck; rather, it was the result of a meticulously orchestrated “long march through the institutions.” Originating in the late 1960s, this strategy was formulated by radicals such as Rudi Dutschke and championed by intellectuals like Herbert Marcuse from the Frankfurt School. Those debates over marginal tax rates in the era conservatives are nostalgic for never existed. Those debates were a distraction.
The pervasive influence of the Left across these cultural pillars is indisputable. Amidst this takeover, conservatives find refuge in talk radio, one of the few remaining bastions of coherent discourse within their grasp. The left has been so successful because of their early acknowledgment of Schmitt’s words.
“The equation state = politics becomes erroneous and deceptive at exactly the moment when state and society penetrate each other. What had been up to that point affairs of state become thereby social matters, and, vice versa… Heretofore ostensibly neutral domains —religion, culture, education, the economy—then cease to be neutral in the sense that they do not pertain to state and to politics.”
In recent years, boycotts have emerged as one of our most potent tools to counter the left’s influence. As Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire advocates on X the adoption of a move taken traditionally from the liberal playbook, “We don’t need to [boycott every woke company]. Pick a few strategic targets. Make them pay dearly. That’s enough to make wokeness a lot less appealing to the corporate world. Stop trying to bring down the whole line of dominos at once.” Examples include Bud Light’s marketing campaign with a transgender influencer and Target’s Pride collection, both facing mass backlash and notable sales declines. Bud Light’s and Target’s decisions led to millions of dollars in lost sales. Although the Pride backlash wasn’t the sole factor, a Target executive acknowledged its impact during an earnings call, describing it as a significant headwind. Target has since announced plans to “pause” and “adapt” their LGBT merchandise displays. These instances demonstrate a subtle shifting power dynamic, with conservative consumers successfully influencing corporate behavior.
While it’s undeniable that Friend-Enemy dynamics persist across various levels, and conservatives must actively engage and succeed within this landscape, it’s crucial to recognize the downside. Prolonged division erodes the very fabric of society; for any community to thrive, common ground is essential. Consider Congress, a body intended for a cohesive nation; it cannot effectively function when half of its constituents can’t define what a woman is. This realization is understandably disconcerting. It’s disconcerting in the same way to realize that what seemed like a civil game of chess is actually a life or death struggle with a grizzly bear. But the late acknowledgment of the existential fight doesn’t suggest an early defeat — it signifies heightened stakes and the imperative to emerge victorious.
You’re not a spectator in this fight; you’re in the thick of it, grappling with the bear itself. The first step was waking up to that nightmare. The next step is to wake up to the reality that the outcome is not yet determined. Your nation, your people, and your faith — they’re not lost yet. Fight with the backbone of your convictions, fortified by faith and dedication.
