Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now

Political Disagreements: Should we strive to resolve them

Political Disagreements: Should we strive to resolve them

Conflicts are inevitable in any political process; these arise from determining who gets what, how and when. (Schmitt 26) in his book the concept of the political argues that ‘‘the specific political distinction is that of between friend and enemy……’’. (Schmitt 38) further holds that ‘‘the utmost degree of intensity of an association or disassociation to ones group is willingness to kill others for the simple reason they belong to a different group…’’. . However, (Schmitt 19) further goes around defending political conflicts by observing that ‘the concept of the state assumes the concept of the political’. This implies that the state can only be legitimate if it’s the legal boundaries exemplify a clear friend- enemy distinction.  From the argument of Schmitt and other authors i will try to demystify whether political differences must always be in the society and whether they play any important role.
(Schmitt 19) claims that the utmost degree of disagreement is the willingness to kill for ones group points to the effects of political differences, can lead us to committing irrational actions in the society. The consequences of political disagreements remain unclear, with some research findings indicating that political disagreement makes the minority less likely to vote in line with their underlying partisanship, increases opinion ambivalence and that it reduces participation in political systems (Mutz 111). However other authors find the above findings exaggerated as argued by (Huckfeldt et al. 4). However, the clarity of the impacts of political disagreements is not clear.
One of the great authors Carl Schmitt, in his book ‘the concept of the political’ advance his core belief that politics is all about friends versus enemies. The author argued that a state only exists when there is a concept of political and therefore he argued that the political system influences the form of state. (Schmitt 12) argues that when a dispute is eminent in a state, the state ceases being a political unit and religion, science, culture and economics becomes active in the political disagreement. By this, Schmitt is explaining the various sources of differences in the society.
(Schmitt 3) argues that political friends and enemies will always be found within the society and in any liberal world. This argument by Schmitt leads to one being drawn to the conviction that we should not strive to solve political disagreements as they will always exist in any liberal society. Schmitt argues that a liberal society is one believe that there is no conflict between human beings that can not be resolved to the benefit of everyone. (Schmitt 35) that a state that has suffered political subversions of the political which is brought by liberal ideologies is not able to protect its citizens. (Schmitt 23) observes that there is a difference between the private enemies and political enemiesor opponents. He writes that the Greek and Latin distinguished the two but modern definitions do not. He argues the bible verse ‘love your enemy’ in Mathew 5:44 only applies to personal enemies but not in political enemies. (Schmitt 102) writes that a world without a possibility of conflict is a world without politics and in such a society, there is nothing of real value but entertainment. By this assertion, Schmitt implies that political enmity is short lived and healthy………………………..CLICK HERE TO ORDER FOR A FULLY RESEARCHED PAPER ON THIS TOPIC AND OTHER RELATED TOPICS FROM A PROFESSIONAL WRITER AT capitalessaywriting.com……………………………. 

Political Disagreements: Should we strive to resolve them

Political Disagreements: Should we strive to resolve them

Conflicts are inevitable in any political process; these arise from determining who gets what, how and when. (Schmitt 26) in his book the concept of the political argues that ‘‘the specific political distinction is that of between friend and enemy……’’. (Schmitt 38) further holds that ‘‘the utmost degree of intensity of an association or disassociation to ones group is willingness to kill others for the simple reason they belong to a different group…’’. . However, (Schmitt 19) further goes around defending political conflicts by observing that ‘the concept of the state assumes the concept of the political’. This implies that the state can only be legitimate if it’s the legal boundaries exemplify a clear friend- enemy distinction.  From the argument of Schmitt and other authors i will try to demystify whether political differences must always be in the society and whether they play any important role.
(Schmitt 19) claims that the utmost degree of disagreement is the willingness to kill for ones group points to the effects of political differences, can lead us to committing irrational actions in the society. The consequences of political disagreements remain unclear, with some research findings indicating that political disagreement makes the minority less likely to vote in line with their underlying partisanship, increases opinion ambivalence and that it reduces participation in political systems (Mutz 111). However other authors find the above findings exaggerated as argued by (Huckfeldt et al. 4). However, the clarity of the impacts of political disagreements is not clear.
One of the great authors Carl Schmitt, in his book ‘the concept of the political’ advance his core belief that politics is all about friends versus enemies. The author argued that a state only exists when there is a concept of political and therefore he argued that the political system influences the form of state. (Schmitt 12) argues that when a dispute is eminent in a state, the state ceases being a political unit and religion, science, culture and economics becomes active in the political disagreement. By this, Schmitt is explaining the various sources of differences in the society.
(Schmitt 3) argues that political friends and enemies will always be found within the society and in any liberal world. This argument by Schmitt leads to one being drawn to the conviction that we should not strive to solve political disagreements as they will always exist in any liberal society. Schmitt argues that a liberal society is one believe that there is no conflict between human beings that can not be resolved to the benefit of everyone. (Schmitt 35) that a state that has suffered political subversions of the political which is brought by liberal ideologies is not able to protect its citizens. (Schmitt 23) observes that there is a difference between the private enemies and political enemiesor opponents. He writes that the Greek and Latin distinguished the two but modern definitions do not. He argues the bible verse ‘love your enemy’ in Mathew 5:44 only applies to personal enemies but not in political enemies. (Schmitt 102) writes that a world without a possibility of conflict is a world without politics and in such a society, there is nothing of real value but entertainment. By this assertion, Schmitt implies that political enmity is short lived and healthy………………………..CLICK HERE TO ORDER FOR A FULLY RESEARCHED PAPER ON THIS TOPIC AND OTHER RELATED TOPICS FROM A PROFESSIONAL WRITER AT capitalessaywriting.com……………………………. 

Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now