Words have teeth. Some just nibble, but others? They tear things down. If you've spent any time scrolling through political Twitter or watching cable news lately, you've probably heard the phrase enemy of the people tossed around like a common insult. It sounds heavy. It feels old. That’s because it is.
Honestly, it’s one of the most effective ways to shut down a conversation. When you label someone an "enemy," you aren't just saying they are wrong. You're saying they don't belong. You're saying they are a threat to the very existence of the group. It’s a verbal sledgehammer.
Historically, this wasn't just a spicy take on a talk show. It was a legal death sentence. From the Roman Senate to the Reign of Terror in France, and most famously under Joseph Stalin, this specific string of words has been used to justify some of the darkest chapters in human history. But why is it back? And why does it still work so well on our brains?
The Bloody Origins of a Political Weapon
The term didn't start with modern populism. Not even close. You have to go back to the Roman Empire to find hostis publicus. Basically, the "public enemy." If the Senate slapped that label on you, your rights vanished. You were no longer a citizen. You were a target.
Fast forward to the French Revolution. This is where it gets really messy. Maximilien Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety used the phrase to fuel the Guillotine. Under the Law of 22 Prairial, an enemy of the people was anyone who "sought to destroy public liberty." That’s vague. Intentionally so. If the definition is blurry, you can fit anyone into it. You didn’t need witnesses or even a defense. You just needed the label.
Then came the Soviet Union. This is the version most historians lose sleep over.
Joseph Stalin loved this phrase. He used it to target anyone who didn't fit the Bolshevik mold—farmers, intellectuals, former allies. Nikita Khrushchev, in his "Secret Speech" in 1956, actually criticized Stalin for using the term. He pointed out that it was designed to "eliminate the possibility of any ideological fight." It wasn't about debate. It was about erasure.
When you call a journalist or a judge an enemy of the people, you are tapping into that specific, violent lineage, whether you realize it or not.
💡 You might also like: Daniel Blank New Castle PA: The Tragic Story and the Name Confusion
Henrik Ibsen and the Play That Flipped the Script
It’s not all dictators and executions, though. In 1882, the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote a play titled An Enemy of the People. It’s a masterpiece.
The story follows Dr. Thomas Stockmann. He discovers that the public baths—the town's main source of income—are contaminated with bacteria. He thinks he’s a hero. He thinks the town will thank him. Instead? They turn on him. The local government and the media realize that fixing the baths would bankrupt the town. So, they declare Stockmann the "enemy."
Ibsen was making a point: the majority isn't always right. Sometimes, the person telling the uncomfortable truth is the one the crowd hates the most. It’s a weirdly prophetic look at how whistleblowers are treated today.
Why the Phrase is Surfacing in the 2020s
You've likely seen the headlines. President Donald Trump famously applied the label to "the fake news media." It sparked a massive debate about the First Amendment. But he isn't the only one using this kind of rhetoric. Across the globe, from Hungary to Brazil, leaders are leaning back into "us vs. them" language.
Why? Because it simplifies a complex world.
Modern life is confusing. Economics are global. Algorithms are opaque. When a leader says, "That group over there is the enemy of the people," it provides an immediate target for frustration. It’s a shortcut for the brain. It moves the conflict from "let's discuss policy" to "let's survive the threat."
Social media acts as an accelerant here. The algorithms prioritize high-arousal emotions. Anger is the highest. If I post a nuanced critique of a tax bill, nobody cares. If I call the author of that bill an enemy of the people, the engagement metrics go through the roof. We are literally incentivizing the use of authoritarian language.
📖 Related: Clayton County News: What Most People Get Wrong About the Gateway to the World
The Psychological Toll of the Label
Psychologically, being labeled this way is devastating. It’s a form of "othering" that triggers our deepest tribal fears. Humans are social animals. In our evolutionary past, being cast out of the tribe meant death.
When a segment of society—be it the press, the judiciary, or a specific ethnic group—is branded the enemy of the people, it signals to the rest of the "tribe" that empathy is no longer required. You don't have to be kind to an enemy. You don't have to listen to them. This is how dehumanization starts. It’s the first step on a very slippery slope toward political violence.
How to Spot the Rhetoric Before It Takes Root
Recognizing this language is a skill. It’s about looking past the heat of the moment. Usually, when this phrase appears, it follows a specific pattern.
- Vague Definitions: The "enemy" is rarely a single person with a specific crime. It's a "class," a "cabal," or an "elite."
- Zero-Sum Logic: The rhetoric suggests that for "the people" to win, the "enemy" must be totally defeated or silenced. There is no middle ground.
- Attacking Institutions: Usually, the target is an institution that provides a check on power. The courts. The free press. Scientific bodies.
- Emotional Appeals over Evidence: The focus is on how much the "enemy" hates you, rather than what they actually did.
It’s easy to fall for it when it’s directed at someone you already dislike. That’s the trap. The test of a free society isn't how we treat our friends, but how we protect the rights of those we find loathsome.
Real-World Consequences: More Than Just Mean Words
Is this just "mean tweets" or "political theater"? History says no.
Look at the rhetoric leading up to the Rwandan genocide. Media outlets like RTLM branded Tutsis as Inyenzi (cockroaches) and enemies of the state. In the Soviet Union, the label justified the Gulag system where millions perished. Even in modern democracies, this language correlates with a rise in threats against journalists and election workers.
According to data from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), rhetoric that labels the press as an enemy of the people often precedes restrictive legislation or physical violence. It creates a "permission structure" for bad actors to take matters into their own hands.
👉 See also: Charlie Kirk Shooting Investigation: What Really Happened at UVU
Actionable Steps: De-Escalating the Language
We can't stop politicians from talking, but we can change how we consume the talk. It’s about building a bit of mental armor.
Audit your media diet. If you realize you’re following accounts that constantly use dehumanizing labels for their opponents, hit the unfollow button. You can stay informed without being manipulated.
Focus on specific actions. If you disagree with a politician or a journalist, argue against their actions or their arguments. Avoid the "enemy" label. It’s lazy. It’s more effective to say "This report is factually incorrect because of X and Y" than to say "This reporter is an enemy."
Support the "Boring" Institutions. The best defense against "enemy of the people" rhetoric is a robust, transparent system. Support local journalism. Understand how your local courts work. The more you know about how the "sausage is made," the harder it is for someone to convince you that the butchers are all evil conspirators.
Engage in "Steel-manning." This is the opposite of straw-manning. Try to describe your opponent's position so well that they would say, "Yes, that’s exactly what I believe." It’s incredibly hard to do. It also makes it almost impossible to view them as a faceless enemy.
Words are tools. They can be used to build a bridge or start a fire. The phrase enemy of the people has almost always been used to light the match. Understanding where it came from and why it's used today is the only way to make sure we don't get burned.
Key Takeaways for Navigating Modern Rhetoric
- Check the Source: Ask why a leader is using an "us vs. them" narrative. Are they trying to deflect from a specific policy failure?
- Historical Context Matters: Remember that this phrase has a specific, violent history in both the French Revolution and the Soviet Union.
- Prioritize Precision: Reject vague labels. Demand specific evidence for claims of "treason" or "subversion."
- Protect the Dissenters: Even if you disagree with a whistleblower or a contrarian, recognize that they are often the most important safety valve in a democracy.