I think Mouffe&#x27;s &quot;agonistic democracy&quot; to be provocative and maybe even a more powerful description of politics than, say, Habermas (I retain affection for Rawls) but, like you, I don&#x27;t think I can buy her efforts to claim Schmitt. Her argument that social media tends to work <i>against</i> agonism by enforcing epistomological closure (to use the trendy term) and thus leading people to a totalistic worldview is, I think, an unconscious rebuke of the extent of Schmitt&#x27;s own friend&#x2F;enemy distinction. But I haven&#x27;t read her major texts, just the collections she&#x27;s edited and contributed to, so I probably should spend some time on that.