Comments on: Kevin Jon Heller on Carl Schmitt and Nuremberg

By: methodact

methodact — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:12:40 +0000

This might be your best post since the one on the Encyclical Letter, “CARITAS IN VERITATE”.

By: CJColucci

CJColucci — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:48:59 +0000

I’ve been waiting for the John Yoo references. I’m not sure Martinned’s counts.

By: lgm

lgm — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:32:24 +0000

Martinned says: It was certainly possible to read Mein Kampf as advocating something more like Mussolini’s Italy.

But when Fascists get control, there's no stopping them acting like Nazis. We should not be learning from Schmitt, we should study him as an example of how not to think. It's the same reason we don't study Faust as a model negotiator.

By: Frater Plotter

Frater Plotter — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:31:07 +0000

Arguing that someone is not a Nazi should end after you concede that they, you know, joined the party.

By: Martinned

Martinned — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:56:30 +0000

Michael Ejercito: It is difficult to tell if he would have been prosecuted had he stayed. It would depend on if he would have been substantially involved with Germany’s war crimes.

Whether he would have been prosecuted is one question. The more interesting thing is perhaps whether he would have committed any serious crimes by staying.

By: Martinned

Martinned — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:54:52 +0000

lgm: The book Mein Kampf was published in 1926. After that, there are no excuses.

Ever read it? Someone who reads that thing and still becomes a Nazi certainly has a lot to answer for. That said, many of the worst Nazi crimes were only foreshadowed to a limited extent. It was certainly possible to read Mein Kampf as advocating something more like Mussolini's Italy.

By: Michael Ejercito

Michael Ejercito — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:01:53 +0000

It is difficult to tell if he would have been prosecuted had he stayed. It would depend on if he would have been substantially involved with Germany’s war crimes.

By: lgm

lgm — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:56:26 +0000

Martinned says: Well yes, but in the mid-30s, years before...

The book Mein Kampf was published in 1926. After that, there are no excuses.

By: Martinned

Martinned — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:13:33 +0000

lgm: The guy actually was a NAZI (no Godwin’s law here). He understood what their program was (or would have had he done his due diligence) and chose to actively help them achieve it.

Well yes, but in the mid-30s, years before the Wannsee conference and the Holocaust. I'd agree with the OP: more reactionary than anything else. BTW, speaking of state of emergency: where's the post on John Yoo on Jon Stewart yesterday? (Money quote: "I'd expect you'd probably spend more time on a car lease agreement than we do on treaties.")

By: jcm

jcm — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:53:55 +0000

BTw
Hayek see himself more close to Donoso Cortes to many liberals, in his book Law, Liberty and Legislation. Donoso Cortes in a parliamentary discourse after the 1848 revolution in Europe established the base of all the reactionary movement. That work is the foundation of the Schmitt work on theological politics.

By: jcm

jcm — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:50:25 +0000

In the book Dictatorship, Scmitt portrait the democratic State of Siege. It was heavily influenced by the Civil War example.He abbandoned that theory on his Work on Political Theology . In the same book he exposed his enemy- friend theory of politics
His book On Hobbes is the most anti-Semitic of his works and was written after his fall of grace with SS. The terminology he used in his book ” The Defender of the Constitution” , an answer to the decision by the Weimar Supreme Court based on Lochner, is the standard in hispanic law world. Like his classification of Judicial Review as diffused , the decentralized american system, , and concentrate , the Austrian kelsenian model based
His notion of institutional guarantee used for local autonomy and property is also commonly quoted by the Spain ´s Constitutional Court.
The Italian Constitution, the model of the Spanish and some Latin-American constitutions ( not in this point) makes the President , the Defender of the Constitution like Schmitt wanted. The grandfather of an american ambassador to the UN was among the drafter of the italian Constitution
He was a nazi, but it does not make him wrong as a lawyer . Unless you fail to the ad personam fallacy. Most of his work predated the Nazis. I dont agree with him . I think Kelsen who answered to him in his work Who must be the Defender of The Constitution was right. But still he is revered in Europe
Konrad Larentz who saw Hitler as the incarnation of Right is also widely read in Spain. He wrote a n acclaimed book on… Ethics
Its the same in many fields: Bertol Brecht throw a party t fund the Nazi party in 19933 at.. New York
The editor of the most important book on anatomy was a jew who supported Hitler.
Jurgen is the best german writer of the xx century and was part of the occupation army in France
Heissemberg , tried to stole information about the atomic bomb from Nils Bohrs. And is an important physics in the level of Plank or Einstein.
None of them was some one trying to be obscure to seem deep like Heiddeger
I dont see anyone putting out of the libraries the travel companions who see no evil in Stalin or Lenin.

By: Crunchy Frog

Crunchy Frog — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:48:23 +0000

The Wikipedia article says that modern neo-conservatives are influenced by Schmitt.

I’ll buy that when some neocon comes out publicly and states that he was influenced by Schmitt. I’d bet the mortgage that article was not written by anyone in the neoconservative movement.

I have the same reaction when liberals (or even conservatives, but not so much) try to tell libertarians what they should believe.

By: lgm

lgm — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:52:55 +0000

I respectfully suggest that the case of Carl Schmitt should give all of us great pause. The guy actually was a NAZI (no Godwin's law here). He understood what their program was (or would have had he done his due diligence) and chose to actively help them achieve it. The most important question about his work should be:

What lessons can we learn about individual political decision making from someone whose philosophical studies led him to help the NAZIs come to power? Maybe the fault is in Schmitt's ideas about executive emergency powers? Maybe it was his decision to tolerate certain aspects of the NAZI program because he favored other parts of it?

The Wikipedia article says that modern neo-conservatives are influenced by Schmitt. Maybe that should give them pause. Maybe it should give us pause when thinking about modern neo-conservatives (lgm coming dangerously close to Godwin here). Remember, the guy was a NAZI. He is not a positive "influence". He is a negative warning -- look at what he thought, and think something else.