{"id":107099,"date":"2016-09-18T07:08:09","date_gmt":"2016-09-18T15:08:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=107099"},"modified":"2016-09-18T07:08:09","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T15:08:09","slug":"carl-schmitt-politics-and-theory-by-paul-edward-gottfried-new-york-greenwood-press-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=107099","title":{"rendered":"Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory. By Paul Edward Gottfried. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"

Review<\/a>: Paul Gottfried’s brilliant new work elucidates Schmitt’s view of the state. As Gottfried stresses, Schmitt rejected the pluralism of
\nHarold Laski, who saw the state as but one of many groups within
\nsociety. This anti-political view ignored the essence of the state, its
\nmonopoly of coercive power.<\/p>\n

Schmitt maintained that liberals overemphasized legality: their
\nquest for a precisely organized system oflegal rules was a futile effort to avoid political decision. Thus, Hans Kelsen, the leading liberal jurist of the German-speaking world and Schmitt’s arch-rival, argued that every legal system stems from a basic rule or Grundnorm. From the basic rule, the entire legal system can be logically deduced.<\/p>\n

Schmitt questioned the fundamental basis of Kelsen’s Pure Theory
\nof Law. The key to sovereignty lies not in a system of principles,
\nbut rather in the power to make exceptions to customary legality in
\norder to deal with emergencies. A state exists not by itself but as one
\nof a group of contending powers. The chief function of the sovereign
\nis to preserve order. Rival states need to be contained and internal
\nfactions kept in line…<\/p>\n

As Gottfried ably brings out, Schmitt refused to subordinate order
\nto any “higher” political goals. In spite of Schmitt’s reputation as a
\ncollaborator with National Socialism, “Schmitt in fact expounded a
\nmodified traditionalist view of the state that had little in common
\nwith Nazi theory or Nazi practice” (p. 3).
\nDuring the final years of the Weimar Republic, Schmitt strongly
\nopposed the Nazis as a manifest threat to political stability. In line
\nwith his doctrine of the exception, he urged that a presidential
\ndictatorship be established to contain both the Nazi and Communist
\nthreats. His advice was of course not followed, and after Hitler
\nbecame Chancellor in January, 1933, Schmitt joined the Nazi Party.
\nHis period of effective collaboration with the Nazis came to an end in
\n1936; he was never the “Crown Prince” of Nazi jurists, as leftist
\nwriters endlessly repeat.
\nSchmitt’s brand of conservatism differed entirely from the Nazis’
\nemphasis on race and party above the state. He saw himself in the
\ntradition of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes…<\/p>\n

A leitmotif of Schmitt’s work was his continued efforts to demonstrate
\nhow theology gave birth to political ideas. His association of
\ndoctrines of the Trinity with imperial assertions of power in the
\nRoman Empire, a thesis that embroiled him in furious controversy
\nwith Erik Peterson, is the most famous instance…<\/p>\n

To Schmitt, the analysis of intellectual movements was much
\nmore than an academic exercise. He maintained that the “tyranny of
\nvalues” endangered contemporary political order. Intellectuals in the
\ngrip of abstract universals threaten to overthrow political order,
\nprincipally by perfervid advocacy of democracy. Rather than view the
\nstate as the preserver of order, the democratic ideology subjects
\nsociety to total politicization (p. 80). In this way it bears a close
\nconnection with totalitarianism.<\/p>\n

Schmitt traced the contemporary ”tyranny of values” in part to
\nthe ethical universalism of Immanuel Kant, who not coincidentally
\nfavored a world federation of nations. <\/p>\n

Gottfried applies Schmitt’s insights in a fascinating way to
\nneoconservatism. Although supposedly rightwing, the neoconservatives
\nfavor total commitment to democracy in the exact fashion stigmatized
\nby Schmitt. Their Wilsonian interventionism and worship of democracy
\nbear no resemblance either to traditional conservatism or libertarianism. Gottfried insightfully compares Allen Bloom’s universalist position with Kant’s (p. 91).<\/p>\n

Paul Gottfried has given us not only a lucid account of Carl
\nSchmitt but also an illuminating analysis of contemporary politics.
\nIn both tasks, he displays remarkably wide-ranging and thorough
\nscholarship. Gottfried is clearly an original thinker of high rank. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Review: Paul Gottfried’s brilliant new work elucidates Schmitt’s view of the state. As Gottfried stresses, Schmitt rejected the pluralism of Harold Laski, who saw the state as but one of many groups within society. This anti-political view ignored the essence … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42763],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-carl-schmitt"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t