I have always appreciated the ability of American politicians to insult each other vigorously during a political campaign and then, when the campaign is over, work together in apparent friendship. Such civility does not come naturally to my Latin American tribe. For us an insult can be the topic of discord generations later as in: “Thirty years ago you offended my great grandfather…” This is, in part, because we have not learned to distinguish an enemy from an adversary.
Understanding the difference between an adversary and an enemy is essential for democracy to work. An adversary is someone we want to defeat. An enemy is someone we need to destroy. Political scientists note that with an adversary compromise is possible and honorable and, most importantly for democracy, association with adversaries is viable.
With an enemy compromise and association are unthinkable. It is possible to trust and associate with an adversary that plays by the rules, but trust between enemies is impossible. As we see in struggling democracies, the politics of enmity make competition dysfunctional and very personal. Our comportment follows our words.
French political philosopher and historian Alexis de Tocqueville was perhaps the first to notice with amazement and admiration the way Americans associate. In his classic work Democracy in America, published in 1835 after his travels in the United States, Tocqueville writes: “In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of object than in America.” He concludes that “nothing…is more deserving of our attention than the moral and intellectual associations of America.”
Tocqueville was a complex thinker who, as a critic of individualism and skeptical of the extremes of democracy, believed that Americans were able to overcome selfish desires through their associations. Associations, for Tocqueville, fostered in America an active political society of adversaries respectful of the laws of the state.
In contrast, in Latin America we often find that versions of a strongman monarchical rule are viewed as the best form of government. It is believed that such a strongman government imitates God’s monarchical government of the world and is best to regulate decisively over enemies. Political maturity is distinguished by independence of thought and action.
In Latin America, political immaturity is characterized by a need for direction from others.
America’s Founding Fathers believed that government, by its very nature, was antagonistic to human liberty and happiness. Bernard Bailyn (1922-2020), eminent historian of early America has pointed out that, “…the American Revolution was above all else an ideological, constitutional, political struggle and not primarily a controversy between social groups undertaken to force changes in the organization of the society or the economy.”
The way Americans differentiate between an adversary and an enemy fosters a culture of individual rights and individual freedom. This contrasts markedly with a Latin American culture of ‘us versus them’ where the perception of others as enemies fosters a collectivist culture.
Individualists believe that life belongs to the person, and the person has inalienable rights to act according to her judgement. Collectivists believe that life belongs, not to the person but to the society to which the individual belongs. For collectivists the individual has no rights of his own and must sacrifice his beliefs for the “greater good” of the group. Individualists speak of individual rights and freedom. Collectivists appeal to the common good or obligations to society.
The collectivist outlook may seem reasonable until we consider that, under the collectivist ‘greater good for the greatest number,’ 51 percent of humanity would be morally justified in slaving the other 49 percent. Or that, a majority group of hungry cannibals can morally eat the minority.
Philosophically, this presents a fundamental question of whether a person’s life belongs to that person or to a community or the state. Politically, it seeks an understanding of whether that person is an enemy or an adversary. Fortunately, in the United States’ political practice, we generally understand the difference between an adversary and an enemy. In my Latin American tribe, not so much.
“The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author”.
