In recent years, Democrats. In future years, Republicans.

What about “Them?” I think that’s a better description of the enemy that most Americans have had over the last 80 years. You can name “them” anyway you choose. “Them” were the fascist Nazis. “Them” were not the Communists, because they helped us defeat the fascist Nazis. Then “Them” were the Communists. The reason I like the label “Them” for our enemies is because it fits in nicely with the United States’ foreign policy (and with much of the mindset of Americans). We’d like to keep our definition of our “enemy” loose enough so that we can shift it, change it, and apply it to whomever we want. A terrorist? Our freedom fighter when fighting against “Them.” Our “Them” when fighting against us. Poor Saddam, we put his Ba’ath Party in power in the 1960s and then we turn on him.

It’s too bad that we let ourselves have such a loose definition of “them” of our “enemy.” Because it seems that most of it is based on fear, not reality. Russia should never have been our enemy. But Russia was never appreciated by Western Europe. Not civil enough, perhaps. Iran should never have been our enemy (heck we hit them first when we overthrew their democratically elected government).

In any case, I am focusing way too much on the foreign policy when your point is clearly more general. What I’m getting at is that our foreign policy is a reflection of how we see things in general. Homosexuals are not our enemy. Homosexuals are children of God. The same goes for the rest of your list. You list off human beings. They are not our enemy. We all are children of God. We are all brothers and sisters. There is only one enemy and he doesn’t live on this planet! That is Satan. He gets us to see each other as enemies, and not as the brothers and sisters that we are, the children of God that we are.

John tells us that perfect love casts out fear. We don’t need enemies to identify ourselves as who we are. In fact, our identity would be stronger if we stopped defining it by who we are not like.

Wait - out of the 13 above, which are Bruce’s 7?

I’m betting they are feminists, intellectuals, polygamists, homosexuals, communists, and maybe masons. What am I missing?

It’s funny that both “polygamists” and “non-polygamists” make the list. Every one of us falls into one of the two categories.

Big Enemy of the Future: the internet?

The interesting thing about Russia, to me (with family members who are Russian and have lived there, to having visited, to my reading on the subject) … is that Russia is to Europe/Asia what Texas is to the US. They don’t really fancy themselves part of either Europe or Asia, just like many Texans don’t really fancy themselves part of the US.

Ingroup/outgroup bias. You’re either with me or against me.

“We” are the Jazz when “we’re” winning. “They” are the Jazz when “they’re” losing.

Or “we” are the Utah Jazz and “they” are the L.A. Lakers- nothing good can come of them. “We” like Shaq because he left the Lakers.

Or “we” are moral liberal Democrats and “they” are war-mongering self-interested George W-ites. Nothing good can come of that, not even the good that comes of it.

Or “we” are moral conservatives and “they” are bleeding heart, tree-hugging liberal nazi socialists. Nothing good can come of that, not even the good that comes of it.

sam,

#8,

ya, you’re right, russia became a terrible dictatorship because they weren’t appeeciated enough… it’s sappy self edulgent, self pity, self guilt psychology applied to both foreign policy and history!

But what exactly made them our enemy? It wasn’t their turning to Leninism. Nor becoming a dictatorship. After all, we’re all best buds with numerous dictators. So what exactly did they do to us to become our enemy? Please enlighten me.

But what exactly made them our enemy? It wasn’t their turning to Leninism. Nor becoming a dictatorship. After all, we’re all best buds with numerous dictators. So what exactly did they do to us to become our enemy? Please enlighten me.

Hmmm …. maybe it had something to do with attempting to establish a nuclear client state off the cost of Florida?

Those poor little harmless commies, all they wanted to do was make sure everyone had their fair share of plutonium and here come those big bad ultra-nationalist free-marketers to rain on their parade. If America could simply acknowledge Jimmy Carter’s peace diplomacy maybe Nicolae Ceauşescu would have a nice NASCAR track out behind the palace for the benefit of those beneficent comrades behind the Iron Curtain.

MAC,

Hmmm …. maybe it had something to do with attempting to establish a nuclear client state off the cost of Florida?

So before 1963, we did not perceive the Russians as our enemy? Is that what you are saying?

MAC,

Also, don’t forget that before they put their nuclear missiles in Cuba, we put our nuclear missiles in Turkey, surely a provocative move, and one that would make them think we were their enemy.

nasamomdele,

Thank you for that answer, but if I may prod further, you are stating that before World War II, we never considered Russia our enemy? The events you talk about occurred at the end of World War II.

MAC,

I’m not talking about the cold war. I’m going back to pre-WWII. We considered Russia an enemy from long before the Cold War period. So what was it exactly. What did they to do us to be ranked among our most mortal enemies?

MAC,

Is it, though?

Oh, and “feminist” is amorphous enough these days that it’s tough to say whether I qualify there. I certainly believe in civil equality between the sexes.

If I qualify as a “feminist,” then I’ve struck a home run on Boyd K. Packer’s (or as he asked in the documentary, “Did I say that???”) official enemies of the [LDS] church list.

Nick,

In case it wasn’t clear, I was purposely attempting to get all of them wrong. Sorry if the joke fell flat.

I had thought that the fact that I left off the obvious ones would give it away.