Now that liberalism's over, is it time to re-read Carl Schmitt

What's so deep about this guy? It's basically, "the leader is above the law. good"

Why is he considered deep?

I personally got interested in him because he is a pretty common reference point in modern intellectual discourse: Agamben, Derrida, Negri, Mouffe, Habermas.

There is more to him as well. His tracings of theological concepts to the political could be compared to Weber's work on the protestant work ethic and capitalism. He also has a detailed critique of modernity and a concept of apocalypse similarly to his leftist counterpart, Walter Benjamin.

Furthermore, his affirment of the sovereign as supreme decision-maker is also a valid point of critique of the way liberals understand themselves. If the state of exception is always a latent possibility and absolutism is at the core of the state institution, what does it say about the supposed democracies we live in? This is a point Agamben ran with you could say, even arguing that the state of exception has become something of a routinely norm in the present day.

One thing is saying 'muh, leader above the law. Good.' Another is arguing that point in a coherent and intelligent manner. People should engage with these kinds of thinkers to better understand the logic of their ideologies.
And taking them by the word and engaging their critiques can also lead to a better understanding of our own positions.

>The conception of presidential sovereignty crafted by the radical statist reactionaries of the Bush administration is so extreme that it has drawn unprecedented criticism in the most sober and respected establishment circles. These ideas were transmitted to the President by the newly appointed Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales – who is depicted as a moderate in the press. They are discussed by the respected constitutional law professor Sanford Levinson in the current issue of the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Levinson writes that the conception is based on the principle that “There exists no norm that is applicable to chaos.” The quote, Levinson comments, is from Carl Schmitt, the leading German philosopher of law during the Nazi period, who Levinson describes as “the true éminence grise of the Bush administration.” The administration, advised by Gonzales, has articulated “a view of presidential authority that is all too close to the power that Schmitt was willing to accord his own Führer,” Levinson writes.
>One rarely hears such words from the heart of the establishment.
radical statists in love with power and violence like getting their shit rationalised

The same issue of the journal carries an article by two prominent strategic analysts on the “transformation of the military,” a central component of the new doctrines of imperial sovereignty: the rapid expansion of offensive weaponry, including militarization of space – joined apparently by Canada — and other measures designed to place the entire world at risk of instant annihilation. These have already elicited the anticipated reactions by Russia and recently China. The analysts conclude that these US programs may lead to “ultimate doom.” They express their hope that a coalition of peace-loving states will coalesce as a counter to US militarism and aggressiveness, led by – China. We’ve come to a pretty pass when such sentiments are voiced in sober respectable circles not given to hyperbole. And when faith in American democracy is so slight that they look to China to save us from marching towards ultimate doom. It’s up to the second superpower to decide whether that contempt for the great beast is warranted.

Going back to Gonzales, he transmitted to the President the conclusions of the Justice Dept that the President has the authority to rescind the Geneva Conventions — the supreme law of the land, the foundation of modern international humanitarian law. And Gonzales, who was then Bush’s legal counsel, advised him that this would be a good idea, because rescinding the Conventions “substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution [of administration officials] under the War Crimes Act” of 1996, which carries the death penalty for “grave breaches” of Geneva Conventions.

We can see right on today’s front pages why the Justice Department was right to be concerned that the President and his advisers might be subject to death penalty under the laws passed by the Republican Congress in 1996 – and of course under the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, if anyone took them seriously.

Two weeks ago, the NY Times featured a front-page story reporting the conquest of the Falluja General Hospital. It reported that “Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.” An accompanying photograph depicted the scene. That was presented as an important achievement. “The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties.” And these “inflated” figures – inflated because our Dear Leader so declares – were “inflaming opinion throughout the country” and the region, driving up “the political costs of the conflict.” The word “conflict” is a common euphemism for US aggression, as when we read on the same pages that the US must now rebuild “what the conflict just destroyed”: just “the conflict,” with no agent, like a hurricane.

Let’s go back to the picture and story about the closing of the “propaganda weapon.” There are some relevant documents, including the Geneva Conventions, which state: “Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.” So page one of the world’s leading newspaper is cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law. No wonder the new moderate Attorney-General warned the President that he should use the constitutional authority concocted by the Justice Department to rescind the supreme law of the land, adopting the concept of presidential sovereignty devised by Hitler’s primary legal adviser, “the true éminence grise of the Bush administration,” according to a distinguished conservative authority on constitutional law, writing in perhaps the most respectable and sober journal in the country.

The world’s greatest newspaper also tells us that the US military “achieved nearly all their objectives well ahead of schedule,” leaving “much of the city in smoking ruins.” But it was not a complete success. There is little evidence of dead “packrats” in their “warrens” or the streets, which remains “an enduring mystery.” The embedded reporters did find a body of a dead woman, though it is “not known whether she was an Iraqi or a foreigner,” apparently the only question that comes to mind.

The front-page account quotes a Marine commander who says that “It ought to go down in the history books.” Perhaps it should. If so, we know on just what page of history it will go down, and who will be right beside it, along with those who praise or for that matter even tolerate it. At least, we know that if we are capable of honesty.

>No wonder the new moderate Attorney-General warned the President that he should use the constitutional authority concocted by the Justice Department to rescind the supreme law of the land, adopting the concept of presidential sovereignty devised by Hitler’s primary legal adviser, “the true éminence grise of the Bush administration,”

Based
This is why Commissars like Harris cant stand him
His focus is like a laser beam

>Now that liberalism's over

Really makes you think.

>Now that liberalism's over

Do any of you fags actually sit around and think about this stuff in real life? I thought it was just a huge Poe's Law movement.

Going to read him some time in the future, but he's a pretty late philosophical figure and I'll have to be familiar with a lot of other stuff before tackling him.

wheres a good place to start with schimtt?

Political Theology. Also his essay on Roman Catholicism and Political Order.

>This is a point Agamben ran with you could say, even arguing that the state of exception has become something of a routinely norm in the present day.

Agamben is another one of these guys who says really simple things about politics and it somehow considered deep.

I take it you haven't read Agamben's work on political ontology, but have heard his concepts explained/butchered through the massive appropriation of his thought into mainstream cultural studies.

How important would you say are schimtts works?

Also, why is it important for you that theories are obscurist?

Yeah you can boil Schmitt down and you could also boil Agamben down to some simple concepts to convey a basic idea of their thought. What is wrong with that? Agamben's method is very profound and he accomplishes something a lot of other heideggerians have failed to do but clumsily skated around: he grounds the political in the ontological instead of attaching it, like Arendt for example.

He is pretty important for subsequent pol-phil and legal theory.

But again, politische Theologie is a rather short text and can be read relatively easy to understand his basic arguments. It is not a huge project, like reading Phenomenologie des Geistes or Sein und Zeit for example.

>tfw your law school followed Kelsen and we have no philosophy class at all

what are the best ranslations?

Just finished the first year of my pol undergrad and Schmitt was one of my topics. It depresses me that now as serious scholarship he has basically be consigned to critical theory. Renato Cristi writes a great chapter in his book about the relationship between Hayek's philosophy and Schmittian dictatorship as a means of dealing with the unpredictability of politics.

In particular though I really think Schmitt's emphasis on the formalism of continental liberalism is worth more credit than people really recognise. Isn't that basically the complaint of all the nationalist movements currently emerging? Supra-national liberal organisations are a disenchanting force that cannot cope with the realities of politics? IMO we need a real re-consideration of Schmitt in academia but unfortunately his sympathy for tyrants is too great an obstacle

Considering Trump is essentially a Neo-Nixonian figure, and his top campaign advisers are Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, who also served as Nixons advisers, becoming familiar with Kissinger's main ideological predecessor would only make sense.

Don't know, I've only read him in Danish translation. Sorry.

Schmitt's just neoconservatism for edgy kids

Wat, Schmitt argued that interventionist policies were a liberal plague

>An important thing to keep in mind with Schmitt is that he never advocated for a totalitarian state before 1933. Until then he advocated for a small, yet powerful, centralized state organ, clearly distinguished and separated from civil society, that maintains law and order through despotic power. This is very much opposed to totalitarianism, where the state and civil society blends together.
hmmm...I can see you know the definitions of words and how to present logical arguments; however I'm not certain you learned to think in school.

Maybe you could learn something from that. How so?

It's not Hillary Clinton and it's not Trump. It's not capitalism. It's not the oil companies, it's not the pharmaceutical companies. It's not China. It's not Russia or Turkey or North Korea or Isreal or ISIS or America. It's not the racists or the bigots or the owners or the wealthy or the poor. It's not your parents and it's not their religion and it's not smartphones or the internet or the spirit of our times. It's not any of these things. It's not the Republicans or the Democrats or UKIP or any of the whatever people and their sides.

It's humans. It's you. It's me.

People are ignorant, self-centered, and self-serving. No ideology or technology or mass education can change this. One day we may have teleporters and space ships and idiots will use them. New religions, new economic systems, new medicines may come and go and idiots will follow, participate in, and consume them and they will stay idiots. Your parents were idiots. You may have children and they will be idiots.

Do not think for a second that this is pessimistic misanthropy. If you are lucky enough to be able to think I am being overdramatic, work any service industry job for more than two weeks. Spend a day or two in the bad part of any large city. Try to have a career. Live with roommates. Date someone.

Do not invest your energy in other people or their systems. Forget the environment, forget politics, forget philanthropy and charity and anything that doesn't help YOU. People are not fun, they are not loving, they are not nice, they cannot be fixed, and they are not worth it. No matter who you are they will fuck you over as soon as it benefits them. Trust no one. Get yours and get out. Live alone and play video games.

You know how I know you never read Schmitt?

Seriously though, he's become a boogyman in the west, so much that leftist academics influenced by his work have to literally write a chapter of proclaimers before delving into it

This is amazing

Why do they have jobs as academics, when they barely rise above the level of a reddit post?

Has to be bait, or maybe you are just a pseud.

You have obviously never fucking read Agamben. Stop embarassing yourself by pretending you have an informed opinion.

I've read some Agamben and he's not that brilliant. Steals a lot from Kojeve and is a closeted Christian.

Big deal.

Why?

But is his entire ouvre the equivalent of a reddit post? With his genealogy, with his command of a large sum of the tradition?

The reduction of Schmitt to 'muh strong leader' and Agamben to 'muh barelife' is testament to someone missing the point entirely. It lacks nuance and appreciation for method and argument.

Constitution of Israel is based in some parts on his theory of law.

>Forget the environment,
Yeah that'll work out well.

>liberalism is over
>dead eyed Hillary is getting elected
I am sorry, OP

Hillary isn't liberal at all, she's a statist.

those things aren't contradictory buddy

They are. She isn't advocating liberty.
Unless it's the muh feelings about bathrooms and dick butt fags kind of liberty.

>liberalism is about my definition of liberty because it's called 'liberalism' and my definition of liberty is the correct one

Liberalism is a political movement based on the writings and ideals of Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, French and American Revolution. The movement died in the meantime, but somehow it stuck with a very different crowd.

>1998
>prescriptivism

not a contradiction