Well. Down with the Weimars...and universals. Oh, and liberalism and pluralism. Yay National Socialist Party? Maybe. For all his political faults (sort of ironic...), I do think Schmitt has interesting things to say. I particularly wanted to touch on that last paragraph that we closed class with. In my Politics in the TV Age class we talked about how everything is sensationalized and turned into an enemy, sort of akin to what Schmitt was talking about when war was changed to keeping the peace. Everything can be justified in that context, covers all manner of sins, if you will. Someone's disturbing class? Kick 'em out, they're disturbing the peace. Causing a ruckus in a public place? Arrest 'em, they're disturbing the peace. Don't know what to do with someone because they don't seem to fit in? Put them away somewhere, they're disturbing the peace.
At the same time, some of that seems necessary, doesn't it? Stability and order in governing and in the citizenry make for a stable country. Governing stability certainly is important, given the lesson of the Weimar Republic. And it seems like, until we do a 180, or at least a 90 on how society approaches the different/non-status quo, those who cause trouble and disrupt the stability need to be dealt with, either through teaching them not to cause trouble (rehabilitation or simple education) or need to be put away (imprisonment). I'm not quite sure how to fix all that. Utopia, I guess. Maybe lots of soma, that seems to work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have been contemplating what is necessary too. Do people need someone to tell them what they can or can't do and use violence to keep those that break rules in line? Do we need an enemy in order to channel the country towards a common goal and unity, and thus create a society that functions? Or is there an alternative?
Post a Comment