You may be interested in a recent revival of his thinking from the left - [1][2] - the idea there is that he doesn&#x27;t mean &quot;enemies&quot; in the sense of a mortal fight, but rather &quot;agonists&quot;. This is explicitly directed against the Habermas type of discourse that is directed towards achieving a consensus, and advocating not to bury conflicts. Basically in response to a &quot;mainstreaming&quot; of political parties (probably not so much in the US, but in many European countries you will find that the major established parties seem to agree fundamentally with very little differences, with the rise of extreme right and left parties at the same time as a reaction). Not a view I share, but I find it interesting that they are now going back to Schmitt for that.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Agonistics-Thinking-Politically-Chantal-Mouffe&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1781681031" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Agonistics-Thinking-Politically-Chanta...</a>
[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Political-Thinking-Action-Chantal-Mouffe&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0415305217&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Political-Thinking-Action-Chantal-Mouf...</a>