In politics shared hatreds are almost always the basis of
The words of Alexis de Tocqueville — “In politics shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships” — strip bare the darker machinery of human alliances. He teaches us that within the world of politics, bonds are not always forged by love of the good, but by loathing of the same enemy. The flame of hatred, though corrosive, often binds men together more swiftly and more fiercely than the gentler fire of shared ideals. Thus, in the councils of power, friendship is too often the child of enmity.
For in the arena of politics, where ambition and rivalry are constant companions, it is rare to find true loyalty. Each man guards his own interest, each party seeks its own gain. Yet when an enemy appears — whether a rival faction, a foreign threat, or a despised figure — unity blooms like sudden lightning. This unity, however, is fragile, for it is not born of mutual respect but of mutual fear and anger. Tocqueville reveals this as a timeless pattern: hatred is the glue of convenience, not the foundation of enduring brotherhood.
History offers us many witnesses. Consider the fragile alliances of the Second World War, where nations with little in common — the democratic United States and Britain, and the communist Soviet Union — joined hands. Their bond was not forged from love of one another’s systems, but from their shared hatred of Hitler’s tyranny. Once the common foe was vanquished, the friendship dissolved, and the Cold War arose in its place. Here Tocqueville’s words ring with prophetic clarity: when hatred is the bond, the friendship seldom survives beyond the battlefield.
Yet, though his words are piercing, they are not merely cynical. They serve as a warning. If we build unity only upon shared enemies, our friendships will be as fleeting as shadows. But if we strive for bonds rooted in justice, compassion, and mutual respect, then we build upon stone, not sand. Tocqueville reminds us that the temptation of hatred is powerful — but the wise must look deeper, lest their alliances collapse when the enemy fades.
Therefore, O children of tomorrow, take this lesson to heart: in politics, beware the friendships born of hatred alone. For such bonds may serve a moment, but they will betray you in the end. Seek instead the rarer path, to build unity through shared hopes, not shared hatreds. For only then will your friendships endure when the storms of the age have passed away, and the enemy is no more.
UMKim Uyen My
Tocqueville’s statement about political alliances being grounded in shared hatred is both insightful and disheartening. It seems to suggest that much of political engagement is about finding an enemy to oppose, which may make progress harder to achieve. How can we change this dynamic? Is it possible to cultivate political alliances based on positive collaboration and shared goals, rather than continually focusing on divisive issues?
GDGold D.dragon
Alexis de Tocqueville’s assertion that shared hatreds drive political friendships got me thinking—does this mean that political unity is more about opposition than true agreement? If so, how does that affect long-term cooperation? Can people ever come together purely based on shared ideals, or will it always be about who or what we’re against? What are the consequences of constantly rallying around negative emotions in politics?
CTNGUYEN cHIM tO
The idea that political friendships are often rooted in shared hatred is a cynical but perhaps accurate perspective from Alexis de Tocqueville. It’s hard to deny that political movements often gain traction by uniting people against a common enemy. But what happens when these shared hatreds dissipate? Are these alliances truly lasting, or are they simply a reflection of short-term tactical thinking? How do we move beyond hatred to create more constructive political discourse?
PPhi
Tocqueville’s observation about shared hatreds shaping political alliances is interesting but somewhat troubling. It makes me question—does this mean that political systems are doomed to rely on negativity rather than positive collaboration? How can we break free from this cycle of division, where opposing views become the foundation of unity? Is there any hope for politics to be about cooperation rather than constant conflict?
HTHuu Tien
I can see how Alexis de Tocqueville’s statement about shared hatreds being the foundation of political friendships rings true in many ways. It’s often easier to rally around opposition rather than build consensus on solutions. But does this approach lead to genuine alliances, or just temporary partnerships based on shared disdain? Can politics ever be a truly constructive force when people are primarily uniting against something instead of toward a common good?