Somehow, I missed the article in the original, but I was alerted to it by a reference in Amor Mundi, the periodic blog of The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College.
Schmitt, according to Mohamed, says that “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced ... is that between friend and enemy.” According to Mohamed, this:
Is a statement meant to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive: The friend-enemy distinction is central to politics in the same way that a good-evil distinction is central to ethics and a beautiful-ugly distinction is central to aesthetics. All other considerations are peripheral to this core concern.
Clinton is ... clearly ... more statist than Trump, and in fact it is difficult to discern in her rhetoric a sense of nationhood standing apart from state institutions and policies — this is a major source of her emotional deficit as a politician. Hers is a politics of the achievable, of incremental progress within received institutional bounds, trained by the kind of long experience that breeds familiarity with the workings of government ... Statism inherently favors moneyed interests. Without some sort of pressure from the sphere of political action, the levers of the state fall all too readily into the hands of the wealthy and well connected. For Arendt this leads to a politics where Enlightenment principles like justice and equality are hollowed of significance and used only to advance the agenda of the powerful.
Arendt emphasize[s] a political space for the kind of human creativity that has positive civic effect. This she likens to the human capacity for procreation: Just as we have the power to bring new human beings into the world, so also we have the power to bring new ideas into the world that reshape their environment, having ripple effects of responses that are also new. This is our highest calling, and highest achievement, as social and political beings.
Making something "new" appear, amidst the society that we create, is the true task of politics. This task is not accomplished by a band of "friends" who overcome the opposition of "enemies," whether foreign or domestic. In fact, this "friend-enemy" distinction is counter to the basic concept of politics, which is that we are "all in this together," and that our politics is the way that we, as a community, decide what we should do, and then seek ways to do it.
We are, in fact, to use the Hillary Clinton campaign slogan, "stronger together," but that slogan seems to emphasize that our "togetherness" is driven by a kind of pragmatism. We get "together" so we can be "stronger." I propose another idea.
I think we need to realize that we ARE together, in sickness and in health, in times of abundance and in times of crisis. We are not divided; we are one. And out of that "many," the "one" makes itself visible. Politics is not, basically, about a friends versus enemies conflict; it is about "decision." Politics is a "friendly debate" about what we should do, and when the time for decision comes, we choose. Our many voices combine. Jesse Jackson called it a "rainbow." I think he may have called it a "tapestry," too. Or maybe that was a metaphor from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
We don't need a new slogan for our "togetherness." The politics we need to practice should be based on the slogan of the United States of America. You know the one: