{"id":3954,"date":"2019-02-17T13:08:13","date_gmt":"2019-02-17T13:08:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2019\/02\/17\/a-good-summary-of-the-political-thinking-of-carl-schmitt\/"},"modified":"2019-02-17T13:08:13","modified_gmt":"2019-02-17T13:08:13","slug":"a-good-summary-of-the-political-thinking-of-carl-schmitt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2019\/02\/17\/a-good-summary-of-the-political-thinking-of-carl-schmitt\/","title":{"rendered":"A Good Summary of the Political Thinking of Carl Schmitt"},"content":{"rendered":"

Carl Schmitt on Political Power<\/a> by J\u00fcrgen Braungardt.  Excerpt:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Political existentialism?<\/span><\/h3>\n

Schmitt is a political existentialist in the following sense: \u2018The political\u2019, that mode of human experience that expresses itself in interpersonal relations of power and struggle, is logically and temporally prior to all political institutions. It is expressed in the distinction between friend and enemy, which is from Schmitt\u2019s point of view a fact of human psychology. We are naturally hostile not only to strangers, but to others. In this regard, his position is close to Thomas Hobbes<\/a><\/span>. [Walter] Benjamin subverts this idea by adding a perspective of compassion: We may be hostile to strangers, but most of us are also strangers, aliens, immigrants, or refugees. We live in times of global migration, and nation states have lost their importance for the definition of political identity. But Schmitt would counter that any call for an inclusion of the \u201ctradition of the oppressed\u201d never brought us closer to a humanitarian turn in history. Instead, Marxist, anarchist, or liberal progress thinkers have several traits in common: they  dream of a better future, but by doing so they instrumentalize the present.  In reality, they attempt to overcome the political dimension, because for them the struggle for political power is dirty, and fundamentally, they want to abolish political power altogether. But politics with utopian aims often culminates in the creation of a Leviathan<\/a> \u2013 an uncontrollable and powerful sovereign entity that forces us to abandon our humanity in exchange for the membership in a system that tends to become totalitarian. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That's a good insight on the part of Schmitt.  Anarchists and 'progressives' try to "instrumentalize the present," that is, to make of it a means to achieve a utopian state (condition) that will justify the violent and by bourgeois standards immoral means necessary in the present to reach the political eschaton<\/em> in which the political as such will be aufgehoben<\/em>. But the quest for 'pie in the future' reliably results in the creation of a totalizing monster state complete with gulag and Vernichtungslager<\/em> in which our humanity is extinguished.<\/span><\/p>\n

Carl Schmitt is eerily relevant at the present moment in American politics. And the unlikely Donald J. Trump has unwittingly made political philosophy come alive like never before. Read this:
<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The sovereign and the state of emergency<\/span><\/h3>\n

In his book \u201cPolitical Theology<\/a><\/span>\u201d (1922), Schmitt famously declares that the sovereign is he who determines the state of emergency, and thus has the political power to act outside the boundaries of the law in times of crisis. With this definition of the sovereign, Schmitt distinguishes between the rule of the law, and the rule of people. Should we allow society to be ruled only by a system of by laws, which means that the actions of rulers also have to be law-abiding? Or should we accept that we need people to be in control of the system, who can at times override or disable the law in order to deal with an emergency, or with a situation for which the law has no provision? According to Schmitt, the essence of political power is the ability to suspend normal law and assume special powers, just like the ancient dictators did. In his definition, the exception defines the limit, and this boundary constitutes what politics is. T<\/span>he answer to \u201cWho decides the exception?\u201d is the precondition of the law being obligatory and being, in fact, obeyed. Even proto-liberals such as John Locke, admitted that the executive must be permitted the power to suspend the laws if necessary for the good of society. The conflict between executive and legislative branches of the government plays itself out in US constitutional law in the different interpretations of the power of the President, or in cases where the President overrides or evades congressional authority. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I am not suggesting that President Trump, in declaring a national emergency anent the southern border, is operating outside the law. But some whom I respect are claiming just that<\/a>.  I am simply drawing attention to Schmitt's relevance to the question.<\/span><\/p>\n

We are living in exciting times, philosophical times!  If I were a young man I would be worried, but I am not, and "the owl of Minerva spreads its wings at dusk."<\/span><\/p>\n

Related: The Secularization of the Judeo-Christian Equality Axiom<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Addendum<\/strong>. Heather MacDonald needs to read Schmitt. Here is how her A Threat to the Constitutional Order<\/a> ends:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

For centuries, Western political theory has struggled with the problem of how to free individuals from the yoke of capricious power. Humanity\u2019s greatest minds conceived of a government constrained by neutral principles. The ground rules in a constitutional polity are set in advance; they cannot be gamed to give one side of a political struggle an unfair and possibly insuperable advantage. The United States does need a wall on its southern border, accompanied by a radical revision of the legal-immigration system to prioritize skills, language, and assimilability. But if we remove the constitutional boundaries around each branch of government, as Trump\u2019s emergency funding appropriation threatens to do, we will have lost the very thing that makes Western democracies so attractive to the rest of the world. The Supreme Court, when the inevitable legal challenges reach it, should strike Trump\u2019s declaration down. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Heather Mac is telling us that the ground rules cannot be gamed to give one side an advantage.  Well, if she means that they ought not<\/em> be gamed, then she is right. But they are<\/em> gamed, and so they can be. If SCOTUS is dominated by leftists who think of the Constitution as a 'living document,' then their rulings will constitute serious 'gaming' in the form of legislating from the bench. How is that for a removal of constitutional boundaries between branches of government? Besides, the law has to be enforced to count as law in any serious sense.   If the Congress does not provide the funding necessary for proper enforcement of the immigration laws, then that too is a serious 'gaming' of the system.  If the Left does not respect the rule of law, then why is the chief executive not justified in declaring a national emergency?<\/span><\/p>\n

It is all very well to speak of "the rule of law not of men," but when Congress refuses to uphold the rule of law then we may have a Schmittian state of exception wherein the chief executive may and perhaps must override the Congress.  I say "may have" because it is not clear to me that Trump's  declaration of a state of emergency is illegal or extralegal.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Carl Schmitt on Political Power by J\u00fcrgen Braungardt.  Excerpt: Political existentialism? Schmitt is a political existentialist in the following sense: \u2018The political\u2019, that mode of human experience that expresses itself in interpersonal relations of power and struggle, is logically and temporally prior to all political institutions. It is expressed in the distinction between friend and enemy, which is from … Continue reading “A Good Summary of the Political Thinking of Carl Schmitt”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[64,137,156,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservatism","category-political-theology","category-schmitt-carl","category-social-and-political-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3954","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}