Talk:Enemy of the people

A more complex history of the phrase

Its easily researchable, and more interesting.

"Enemy to the people" was a common phrase in 19th century British parliamentary debate, and was also used in American political discourse. I've seen some 18th century references as well. It was generally evoked in defense of the government's role in representing the people. Uses included: criticizing the monarchy conceptually, criticizing a monarch which did not represent his subjects, criticizing power more generally, criticizing those who opposed expansion of suffrage, criticizing representatives who abandoned their constituents, criticizing those who engaged in election fraud.

Some quick examples from Google Books,

“A free and an extensive franchise is necessary for the preservation of public liberty, and that man is an enemy to the people, and a friend of arbitrary and irresponsible power who proposes to contract it.” — John Russell, Prime Minister of Great Britain 1846-1852

“In every form of government in which the possessors of the supreme operative power have not the great body of the people for their constituents, the situation of every possessor of a share in the supreme operative power is that of an enemy to the people.” – Jeremy Bentham, utilitarian philosopher, social reformer

“There was no greater enemy to the people, no falser friend to the royal family, than he, who abandoning his duty to his constituents would persuade parliament to put a negative upon, or not voluntarily to comply with, the expressed sense of the people.” – Lord Castlereagh, British foreign minister

“Unless they agree to the present motion, they betray the people, by leaving it in the power of the minister, (who shews himself an enemy to the people, by his conduct here, and by his directions to others in another place, to put a stop to one of the means of rederessing the abuses complained of, by throwing out the Contractor’s Bill) to prologue or dissolve the parliament before the means of redress are applied.” — Charles James Fox, Whig politician

“Power is ever stealing from the many to the few … He is an enemy to the people, of necessity, because the moment he joins the government he gravitates against the popular agitation, which is the life of the republic.” – William Lloyd Garrison, American abolitionist

“Suffrage is the basis of free government. He that cheats in elections is guilty of the worst kind of treason and should be punished as a traitor. He who gives utterance to a falsehood, for the purpose of influencing a voter, is but little better. To denounce cheating, bribery, and falsehood, when detected, and suggest effective preventatives, will be a leading object of the proposed paper. In this the undersigned does not intend to be any respecter of parties; for the man who resorts to such means for the accomplishment of political ends, whatever he may call himself, is no Democrat, and is an enemy to the people.” – Amos Kendall, American lawyer, journalist

This was the use of the term that informed Ibsen's play Enemy of the People, or En Folkefiend. For clarity, the French "ennemi du peuple" was translated as "enemy to the people" at the time, as was "En Folkefiende." Today, both are translated as "enemy of the people." So the difference in phraseology is incidental, and there isn't a differnce in meaning.

Now, the Roman term, "hostis publicus", has a different history, not either represented in this article here or in the Wikipedia article on "public enemy". It continued to have legal usage, and does today. Members of rebellions, subjects of belligerent countries were considered legally "public enemies." It was not merely a rhetorical term, or a political term, but a legal term meaning individuals under some power or group at war with the host nation.

It only later became applied not legally but rhetorically to thieves, robbers, and predators, and today terrorist groups, as an extension of the legal term. The source of this I believe was that pirates from Roman times were also cast as an enemy of the people, but a "hostis humani generis" rather than a "hostis publicus", meaning a general enemy of humankind.

The history of these two terms seems to be linked by "Public Enemy to the People", an expression that I've found used against monarchs who had become tyrants. For example, of of several examples I found is from the trial of Charles I of England,

‘For all which Treasons and Crimes this court doth adjudge that he, the said Charles Stuart, as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer and publick Enemy to the good people of this Nation shall be put to Death by severing the head from his Body.’

The phraseology of "enemy to the good people" is again ascribed to James Mitchell in his trial giving a reason why he attempted to assassinate an archbishop of Scotland in 1677.

And then this, from an English pamphlet,

‘James the Second was justly abdicated according to this Saying, because he was an Enemy to the People for whom he was made a King; and our most Glorious Hero William the Third, the Restorer of Universal Peace and Liberty, was invested with the Supreme Power by the honest People of Great Britain, for whose good he has indefatigably employ’d it ever since, in vindicating, settling, and enlarging their Civil and Religious Rights.’ — John Toland, Irish philosopher, satirist

This from a later, apparently anonymous, English pamphlet,

‘When they will Usurp the Name of the People to themselves. And whatever is Refus'd to Them is Refus'd to the People! The Right of the are set up in Opposition to the Crown! And then it is Easy to see the Matter will go And by these Means, (if suffer'd to go on) the People will come Really to be on their Side as they did in Forty One think it is Their Rights that are Contended for. Then the King is the Publick Enemy of the People! And now Power must be Intrusted in his Hands, without the Inspection of those Patrons of the People! Whomsoever Blacken, are Black, are Traytors to the People! And in their Names will Demand their Heads And they are Traytors who Refuse, them Speak in Defence, or have any Conversation with those deem'd by the People!’

Although I've also seen "public enemy"/"publick enemy" used more rhetorically, too, as well as "enemy of the publick", "enemy of the publick liberty", "enemy of the publick good" etc. In fact, in many writings, the figure of the "tyrant" is often specifically attacked as a "publick enemy" and "a publick enemy of all mankind". I'm just guessing that "public enemy of the people" is distinguished from plain old "public enemy" to refer to a tyrannous king, specifically because of his role in opposition to not just the public, but the people. At any rate, this easily segues into 19th century uses, especially those by Bentham, and another particular reference I saw but didn't quote regarding a French king no longer being considered the "enemy to the people."

A cursory examination of the history of the French "ennemi du peuple" shows it was employed similar to the English use.

An early reference I can find is in a book by Hubert Languet from 1581, De la puissance legitime du prince sur le peuple, et du peuple sur le prince (Of the legitimate power of the prince over the people, and of the people over the prince), which says that a prince that is corrupt and subverts his relationship to his subjects is an "ennemi du peuple". This is the source of the use of the term during the French Revolution. The term "ennemi du peuple" was used to describe Louis XVI before and after he was overthrown.

This may link back to Aristotle, who in Politics, talks about oligarchs who declare themselves enemies to the people,

‘There is an error common both to oligarchies and to democracies: in the latter the demagogues, when the multitude are above the law, are always cutting the city in two by quarrels with the rich, whereas they should always profess to be maintaining their cause; just as in oligarchies the oligarchs should profess to maintaining the cause of the people, and should take oaths the opposite of those which they now take. For there are cities in which they swear- 'I will be an enemy to the people, and will devise all the harm against them which I can'; but they ought to exhibit and to entertain the very opposite feeling; in the form of their oath there should be an express declaration- 'I will do no wrong to the people.' 

Apparently, Athens had declared tyrants as public enemies in anti-tyrannical legislation called the Psephism of Demophantus, described by Andocides, who says its engraved on a stone in front of the Council chamber,

‘If anyone shall suppress the democracy at Athens or hold any public office after its suppression, he shall become a public enemy and be slain with impunity' , Andocides, On the Mysteries, Book I

The Psephism further describes an oath that every Athenian needed to take if they stood by the democratic constitution of Athens, in which they would swear to slay any such tyrant who was a public enemy. This argument from Athenian law then was adopted by the Jesuits Luis de Molina and Juan de Mariana, who compared the king of France with the 'monsters of antiquity' and argued that tyrants were public enemies and that it was a public good to kill them.

‘If the circumstances demand it, the prince must be killed as a public enemy, and must be killed in the name of the right of defense, and in the name of the authority of the people, more legitimate and always superior to that of the tyrannical King.' - Juan de Mariana

In a later period, he added the qualification that a private man could only act against a public enemy only as a representative of that community. Francisco Suárez agrees that its not by private authority, but by public sanction.

Brianshapiro (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

John of Salisbury in a discussion of the tyrant as the greatest public enemy,

"To kill a tyrant is not merely lawful, but right and just. For whosoever takes up the sword deserves to perish by the sword. And he is understood to take up the sword who usurps it by his own temerity and who does not receive the power of using it from God. Therefore the law rightly takes arms against him who disarms the laws, and the public power rages in fury against him who strives to bring to nought the public force. And while there are many acts which amount to lèse majesté, none is a graver crime than that which is aimed against the body of Justice herself. Tyranny therefore is not merely a public crime, but, if there could be such a thing, a crime more than public. And if in the crime of lèse majesté all men are admitted to be prosecutors, how much more should this be true in the case of the crime of subverting the laws which should rule even over emperors? Truly no one will avenge a public enemy, but rather whoever does not seek to bring him to punishment commits an offence against himself and the whole body of the earthly commonwealth."

And there is also a separate use, "public enemy of the king"/"king and realm" versus "public enemy of the people", suggesting that "public enemy" took on the meaning of the Latin hostis in contrast to inimicus.

Brianshapiro (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll do some more research and dig deeper to try to trace the history of the term from start to finish for a reworked article. Brianshapiro (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

please do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.177.110 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No one could possibly object to an offer to research more deeply into a subject, but, given its controversial nature, you might want to post any major changes you plan to implement here before you add them to the article. Sometimes it's easier on everyone to iron out any problems in advance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

United States entry on this page is clearly made from a non-neutral point of view and based on one statement made by the current U.S. President who is clearly known to be bombastic in speech, who was trying to make a political point. Current section should be removed due to NPOV. The United States being a Constitutional republic generally follows the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution guarantees Constitutional protections, including the right to a fair trial in the Fifth Amendment, which would prohibit somebody from being designated as an "enemy of the people" prior to conviction after a trial by a jury of their peers of a crime against the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgk1 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your analysis of his intent is your analysis of his intent, therefore it's WP:OR. We don't delve into the psychology of why people say what they say -- unless reliable sources do so -- we simply report what it is they say, and Trump said this, on more than one occasion. Your mention of jury trials and the constitution is also irrelevant as to what Trump said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

New sections

I think each country should get their own individual section so it won't have these awkward segmentations. puggo (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump section proposed addition

Wittes and Rauch:

When Trump tweeted about taking “NBC and the Networks” off the air (“Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked”), congressional Republicans were quick to repudiate … left-wing media bias. In a poll by the Cato Institute, almost two-thirds of Republican respondents agreed with the president that journalists are “an enemy of the American people.”

To be added. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-communist agenda

Can anybody explain to me why this article conflates "enemy of the people" a term used by authoritarian dictaators like trump to denigrate their opposition, with "class enemy" a term used by communists in relation to Class struggle? This strikes me as disingenuous. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2603:8001:B840:8B82:1DF1:FBF1:5BA4:40CF (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Haha this is the most ridikulous comment I've ever read in my life The press and big tech silenced Trump at every opportunity like the ty-rants they are. We had 4 years of Trump and no media outlet was shut down, but Trump was removed from social media We know who the totalitarians are. 2603:8001:B840:8B82:1DF1:FBF1:5BA4:40CF (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC) I just want to take a moment to point out that your argument posits the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. That is to say, "social media" is a general group of private corporations, not government entities. In other words, you are saying that private companies should be forced to do what Trump (a government entity, or politican) wants them to do. That is, in fact, an example of totalitarianism, and is one of many reasons why Trump and his supporters have been characterized as neo-fascists. Furthermore, in regards to your other unusual claim, namely that "no media outlet was shut down" during the Trump era, in point of fact, attacks on individual journalists and media outlets increased exponentially (and this is widely documented), in part due to incitement by extremist Republicans and Trump himself. I've spent a great deal of time studying this problem, so if you want to contact me on my talk page and ask me questions, by all means, do so. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

2018 Capital Gazette mass shooting

Some commentators tried to link these comments to a mass shooting at the offices of a newspaper publisher in Annapolis, Maryland, that took place only days later, on 28 June.

While it is certainly true some commentators tried to link Trump to the Capital Gazette mass shooting, with time it has become apparent that this particular shooting is not connected to Trump and involves a troubled man who had a long-running dispute with the paper. I would like to suggest that we should consider removing this statement. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove the sentence, because it was the case that a connection was drawn, but I added to it that the incident turned out not to be related, with cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Trotsky in the lead

The term “enemy of the people” was used indiscriminately in Soviet Russia in 1917–1956. I actually know Russian and have read a lot about it. Take a look at this article, for example. [1] The exitor that reverted me not only pushes their POV regarding Trotsky (unsourced by the way), but also doesn't even know how to format links. I’ll create an account and take this editor to admins for this behavior if they do not stop pushing POV. 94.131.100.213 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In the second graf of the lede, an IP editor changed

"In the 20th century, the politics of the Soviet Union (1922–1991) much featured the term enemy of the people, especially against Trotsky, during the régime of Stalin (r. 1924–1953)."

to:

"In the 20th century, the politics of the Soviet Union (1922–1991) much featured the term enemy of the people to discredit any opposition, especially during the régime of Stalin (r. 1924–1953)."

After a couple of rounds of reverting, I offered this compromise version:

"In the 20th century, the politics of the Soviet Union (1922–1991) much featured the term enemy of the people to discredit any opposition, especially during the régime of Stalin, (r. 1924–1953) when it was often applied to Trotsky."

I hope that this is acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why you deleted my message, but okay, have it your way. 94.131.100.213 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. 94.131.100.213 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It was an accident (the deletion, not the restoration). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I assure the IP editor, and the community, that in the 18 years I have edited here, I eventually learned "how to format links". It was a long, hard, struggle, but the light finally dawned and now I can format them as if I was a veteran editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Trotsky is not mentioned by the source [2] after your material. Unless you can provide such a source to support your emphasis of Trotsky as an enemy of the people during the regime of Stalin, I will insist on removing your unsourced material. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User warned by admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This editor is following me for the purpose of hounding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) The material you added is not mentioned by the source [3]. Don't make such a POV charge against me. I have the right to edit this article when I have a good reason. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) You do not have the right to follow me around Wikipedia for the purpose of Wikihounding. Instead of deleting my warning about this from your talk page, I suggest that you actually read WP:Harassment. I've reported your behavior to an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC) All my edits on these articles have a good reason. You are making a POV charge against me, just like you did on Talk:Moro Rebellion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC) The act of Wikihounding is not in the quality of the edits involved, it's in the following, as you have followed me to Flatiron Building, The Palisades (Hudson River), Nazi Party, Martin Bormann and this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Your comments are off-topic. You should make these comments somewhere else. The material you added is not mentioned by the source [4]. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC) I have made these comments on every article which you followed me to in you Wikihounhding campaign, and will continue to do so, in order that other editors can decide for themselves if your edits should be recognized as legitimate, or rejected because of the ulterior motive behind them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC) You are making a POV charge against me, just like you did on Talk:Moro Rebellion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) The problem I pointed out did exist. You added a reference for your material later and I format it for you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Why does "class enemy" redirect here?

Class enemy should redirect to class war. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. But then the target article must defne the term. - Altenmann >talk 14:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)