How do (many) philosophers respond to the logical fallacy "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend"?
It is not uncommon if I am having a conversation with someone about a public policy proposal, in which I criticize an idea advanced by one political party, for the other person to respond "how can you possibly favor the idea advanced by the OTHER political party?" when in fact I favor NEITHER party's idea?
I'm actually a bit surprised at how widespread this kind of fallacious thinking is. Many times neither "side" of a public policy debate has useful ideas (in my opinion) and I would prefer a third alternative very much over either "side's" position.
Any suggestions about how to escape this enforced box would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
PS does this fallacy have a formal name? if it does, then at least in on-line debates I can merely link to the Wikipedia article about the fallacy. Thanks again.