Schmitt's Concept of the Political

Hello everyone:

I enjoyed reading this piece, because it is the first time I have read something from Germany during the Weimar Republic period. The first important point I noticed was the interesting use of semantics by the author - he examines the linguistic background for public versus private enemies, by looking at both Plato's Republic and the books of Matthew and Luke. I suppose I implicitly understood the difference between the two, but he explains them in such a manner as to make it perfectly clear how the state deals with the two - that is to say, as the same entities (pg. 28-29). In fact, he goes on to point out the vital differences in word use regarding the German reparations following WWI. He explains that the nations being paid held it aloft as tribute from a defeated nation - this inflamed the German people, who wanted it called reparations or a pension. I have always been taught that WWI was generally one of the larger causes of WWII, and that the reparations didn't help, but it really interests me to learn that one of the major points of contention was over a bit of language.

From this one point, I started considering how this work applies to today. What is striking to me is Schmitt's argument revolves around the inherent importance of the state as the least common denominator of the political (politics being something he doesn't acknowledge unless a state is highly weakened), and how much that is no longer the case in today's world. The modern-day example that comes to mind is the dynamic between Islamic terrorist groups and the United States. In addition to actual skirmishes being fought around the world, this is both a battle of words and ideas. Bin Laden wrote extremely eloquent pieces decrying the decadence, inherent sloth, and other problems he saw within the American people. George W. Bush responded with equally polemic words, decrying the [Islamic] terrorists as extremists, enemies of freedom [the core of America], and so forth. Similar to the situation in Europe following the first world war, there are fairly large differences of opinion, but these could have been solved. The problem is (in an extremely simplified analysis for the sake of this post], leaders on both sides were unwilling to compromise or back down, and things deteriorated with such aggressive uses of language. This falls right back into a later passage of the work, on page 33: "war is the existential negation of the enemy." This holds true today - both sides are in the business of utterly eliminating "the Great Satan" and the Islamic fundamentalists, respectively. This is not a perfect match, because the soldiers on both sides are no longer clearly marked, and even more importantly, both sides are no longer states. It is just interesting to consider many of ideas by Schmitt on state-to-state interactions, in terms of recent events.

Have a good evening, England prevails, etc

-Mike