—
“They are the Enemy of the People” is not a harmless throwaway line, used as rhetorical salt on incomprehensible word salads.
No, the phrase is a repressive political device, meant to chill the blood of its subjects; and boil the blood of its protagonists — “the People.”
Designating someone, some media, some class of people as “the Enemy” is a very serious charge. It should not be done lightly. It should not be done carelessly. It should not be done in jest.
History is replete with examples of this rhetorical sledgehammer being wielded to great effect:
The expression dates back to Roman times.[1] The Senate declared emperor Nero a hostis publicus in AD 68.[2]
The words "ennemi du peuple" were extensively used during the French revolution. On 25 December 1793 Robespierre stated: "The revolutionary government owes to the good citizen all the protection of the nation; it owes nothing to the Enemies of the People but death".[3] The Law of 22 Prairial in 1794 extended the remit of the Revolutionary Tribunal to punish "enemies of the people", with some political crimes punishable by death, including "spreading false news to divide or trouble the people".[4]
[...]
The Soviet Union made extensive use of the term (Russian: враг народа, vrag naroda), as it fit well with the idea that the people were in control. The term was used by Vladimir Lenin after coming to power, as early as in the decree of 28 November 1917:
all leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court.[5]
[...]
In his 1956 speech denouncing Stalin’s cult of personality, Stalin's successor Nikita Khrushchev called for an end to the use of the term, stating "the formula 'enemy of the people' was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals" who disagreed with Stalin.[4] For decades afterwards, "It was so omnipresent, freighted and devastating in its use under Stalin that nobody [in Russia] wanted to touch it. ... except in reference to history and in jokes", according to an author of a biography of Khrushchev, William Taubman.[4]
[...]
China
In Mao Zedong's 1957 speech On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, he comments that "At the present stage, the period of building socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour, support and work for the cause of socialist construction all come within the category of the people, while the social forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist construction are all enemies of the people."[11]
[...]
Enemy of the people — wikipedia.org
These are not the only examples. Calling someone “the Enemy of the People” is not a joke — it is a from of repression instead. It is by design meant to have chilling effects, far and wide. To cut off dissent, to “draw a target” on your political foes’ monikers.
— —
[As a side note: The historic dynamics of “building socialism” in Communist China, should serve to caution modern-day Democratic Socialists from making the same mistakes. In a word, not every fellow-citizen will simply fall in-line with such an Agenda. Nor should you expect them to.
I prefer putting the emphasis on providing “Public Services” to needy citizens, instead of promoting “Government-run” Health Care, College, etc. And leave the idea of ‘Socialism’ out of it. We want improved Public Services, and ‘not a band of Socialists running the country’. The Ads write themselves.
But what do I know? … I’m an old dog who remembers the stain of that word, part of an aging demographic. Soon to join the dustbin of History. It’s a Free Country — may indeed morph into It’s a Socialist Country — decades from now. If we last that long.]
But I digress … back to the original topic.
— —
Calling the opposing Party “the Enemy of the People” — is the first step to social disruption, threats of violence, and an exceedingly dysfunctional government. We in America are already well beyond that first step.
In late October 2018, sixteen packages containing pipe bombs were mailed via the U.S. Postal Service to several prominent critics of U.S. President Donald Trump, including leading Democratic Party politicians such as former U.S. President Barack Obama, former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While the packages were initially treated as live bombs, analysis indicated some of them could not explode, though it is unclear if they were "intentional" duds.[5]
en.wikipedia.org — the so-called MAGA Bomber:
And more recently this domestic terrorist made plans to take-out many more of the president’s “critics” … as if the First Amendment was NOT indeed the first rule of America:
[...] According to NBC News:
"A U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant working in the nation's capital lived a secret life as a "domestic terrorist" who aspired to mass murder and compiled a target list of prominent politicians and journalists, federal prosecutors allege in court papers."
The suspect, Christopher Paul Hasson, was arrested on drug and gun charges, but prosecutors said that he was intent on committing a killing spree against journalists and Democratic politicians. He described himself as a "white nationalist" and searched for pro-Russian and neo-Nazi literature online.
— News Corpse
If you asked me, it is those who are intent on such violence and terror who are the true “Enemy of the People”. And those who rile them up with throwaway lines of hate and ethnic venom, are not much better. The violent nut-job may indeed have been a “ticking time bomb” to begin with — but someone, or something, came along and lit the fuse ...
—
We in America are witnessing a disturbing rise such failed domestic terrorist attempts. This increase is likely due to the increase in despicable opposition-branding: “Libruls are the Enemy of the People”. One day soon if these authoritarian edicts continue as amped-up as ever, some “stochastic fuse” in the target audience will not fail. And mass chaos will have been wreaked.
And legions of pearl-clutching reporters will then ask: Could this (these) terrible traged(ies) have been prevented? (Right question, but wrong time-frame. Barn door, rampaging horses, etc.)
At which point we will have passed into step two: The casual acceptance of citizen-on-citizen terrorism.
Some think that Trump’s casual alternating between condemning/condoning of the “domestic terror” that occurred AND SUCCEEDED in Charlottesville has already put us there.
The fuse has been lit. And only the Chief fuse-lighter in the White House can “un-light” it.
Sadly and tragically Trump the Inciter has shown next to no inclination to do so — to put out the rhetorical fires he so gleefully — and intentionally — has started.
— — —
Parting thoughts: When the violence is started “stochastically” by seemingly random individuals, can any one person in power, really be blamed for the ultimate violence, for setting off all those rhetorical sparks?
How were they to have known? Exactly what effect their divisive words would ultimately have?
They were spoken in jest, to rile up the crowd. To have a very limited effect, in space and time.
Yeah Right!?
And Smoky the Bear really wants us to throw-away our lit cigarette-butts directly into the forests, too.
—