See new post - in the meantime please do me the favor of not attributing positions to me that I am merely seeking to understand or explicate.
A lot of it will come down to another theme of Schmitt's, which is that your political outlook will be greatly affected by your pre-suppositions about human beings. If you pre-suppose, as Schmitt does - and as Hobbes very much did, and as the voice of experience tends to vs the voice of innocence - that human beings are dangerous and risky beings, then friend and enemy with the limit of lethal violence (giving or receiving) re-asserts its head in some form, even if somehow attenuated, even if the threat of force (or threat of a threat) is somehow masked or suppressed. Even if you insist that this way of viewing human beings is limiting, and that propagating it is evil, if you're not aware of it and its effect, then whatever you're observing, it's not human life.
I think you know that "friend close, enemies closer" was a rule for a violent world. I think you really want "no enemies." I want to be a global idealist-universalist, too, but to imagine the world as one is to imagine the one, and to imagine the one implies two, and two implies many, and so on... We've always known we were one, but rather than preventing us from dividing, it is the condition of our dividing again. Even if I find a way to think beyond, it does no one any good if my "beyond" loses touch with what is.