There's a big debate unfolding online over Carl Schmitt's concept of the political, and friend enemy distinction.

Conservative slop podcasters (and most likely haven't even read Schmitt) are calling it "third-world tribalism", and completely misrepresenting Schmitt.

Friend enemy distinction isn't third world tribalism, its the very basis of what all politics ultimately is.

Schmitt defines the enemy as the public “other” that poses an existential threat to a community’s way of life. The friend is defined by the shared political grouping against that threat.

A people, or political idea will cease to exist politically if they do not apply this fundamental distinction. Those that refuse to apply it will always lose out to an opponent that does.

Schmitt's theory also proposed that liberalism masks the friend/enemy distinction that is fundamental and unescapable in politics.

That liberalism encourages a system of debate and talking and endless attempts at compromise, which is impossible and the friend enemy distinction immediately reasserts itself once conflicts become existential.

This is why conservatives, who are liberals, hate Schmitt and seek to attack him and misrepresent him, because they can't answer or dismantle his critiques about liberalism.