Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty by Carl Schmitt
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Exceptional Nonsense; And Exceptionally Dangerous

Political Theology is the constitutional playbook for fascism. Written in the 1920’s, the book succinctly establishes the ultimate (that is to say theological) rationale for radical authoritarian nationalism. It remains a favourite text for more recent theoreticians, especially those with populist and evangelical tendencies, like Steve Bannon, in the United States.

For Schmitt, the sovereign, that entity in government beyond which there is no appeal, is “he who decides the exceptions.” That is, the person who can both define what constitutes an exceptional case in law, as well as what the disposition of that case will be, is the foundation of the state.* To understand the import of this claim, one only need contrast it with the governmental philosophy of separation of powers contained in the U.S. constitution.

The ‘exception’ in Schmitt’s conception is equivalent to a period of ‘emergency’. During this period, the sovereign may not only suspend the constitution, as sovereign dictator he may amend it to suit the situation, that is, to meet a pressing need. ‘Whose need?’ Is of course the central issue. Schmitt defines it as ‘ours’; ‘us’ being defined negatively as not ‘those who are against us’. In short ‘we’, the people who constitute the state which is subject to sovereign power, are those who subscribe to the concept of the sovereign dictator. One is either friend or enemy. Each category defines the other. The logical loop is airtight.

Politics, therefore, has a rather peculiar meaning within this framework. It cannot mean pluralistic conflict and debate to arrive at some compromise because ‘friends’ cannot be in conflict with each other and ‘enemies’ are there to be overcome.

Similarly, there cannot be any fixed ‘rule of law’ since all law is situational and needs to be adapted to the needs of the people and the threats against them, that is their enemies. Human beings, Schmitt believes, cannot be made subject to a set of political rules or universal laws because as human beings the content of their lives and threats to those lives cannot be anticipated. Any insistence on law as such imperils the very existence of the people as well as their state.

In short: rules are essential for public order and the existence of the state. But, critically, rules are there to be broken as necessary to ensure the health and welfare of the state. Not broken by just anyone of course, only by the sovereign, the dictator, the leader, the Fuhrer. The political must be eliminated and replaced by organizational and technical rationality in order to prevail against the enemy.

What do these claims have to do with theology? Schmitt believed that we have entered a secular age which is dominated by ‘hollowed-out’ Christian institutions that have lost the power they had at the height of European Christianity in the 16th century. His aim is to restore the legitimacy and strength of power held by medieval, of course Christian, monarchs to the leaders of the modern state. An up-to-date version of L’etat c’est moi.

This may sound alien to anyone brought up in modern democratic state. But it is a theory that has been promoted consistently by not just the Catholic Church but by most Protestants sects. This theory is that the source of all power, including political power, is God. Power is distributed, like grace, from this source through various institutions of church and government as if in a series of waterfalls. Each level is granted what they need to carry out their duties, and passes on the degree of power necessary for subordinate levels to do the same.

Throughout the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, the Catholic Church fought bitterly against democracy and in favour of monarchy, specifically on the basis of this theory of power. Schmitt, a Catholic, was acutely influenced by Catholic philosophers and theologians who were reacting primarily to the dislocation of ecclesiastical power brought about by the French Revolution. [see my review of East West Street for details: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...]

Today it is Trump and his band of evangelical supporters who are carrying the flag of sovereign dictatorship. Trump’s clear attempt to eliminate not just his political opponents, but politics itself is evidence of his intent. Similarly his persistent efforts to define real Americans as not immigrants nor as Muslims, nor as black people, nor even as members of the Democratic Party, are tactics taken straight from Schmitt. Trump’s recent claim to be above the law, to be able to pardon himself, is perhaps the clearest example of his intention to take control of the ‘exception’ in Schmitt’s sense.

This also explains why so many American Evangelicals are so intensely attached to an obviously vile, mendacious, and corrupt leader. He has, in their view, been appointed by God to clean the stables, to drain the swamp, to overturn the money-changers who are all engaged in the un-godly practice of politics. It is politics which these religious enthusiasts despise, particularly politics which contradict their beliefs in their own Christian superiority.

So if you have wondered about what the connection is between Bannon (lapsed Catholic), Pence (evangelical Catholic), Barr (Traditionalist Catholic) and many others surrounding 45, check out Schmitt’s little book. If what is happening appears to be a religious war, this is not illusory. Theology is most powerful where it is least challenged, that is among true believers.

But it is a war sparked not by Muslims or immigrants, or black people. Rather it is created by something that has become embedded in the fabric of modern Christianity: the belief that power is and should be controlled by ‘us’, the community of believers, the Christian Ummah. It is after all a matter of divine right. As a cradle Catholic myself, I point this out with deep regret. So it goes.

* I suspect that Schmitt’s inspiration for this formulation is the 11th century theologian, Anselm of Canterbury. His ‘ontological proof’ for the existence of God defines God as "aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit": that which it is not possible to think of anything greater. This is the political equivalent of Schmitt’s proposition and provides a convenient surrogacy for God in the role of sovereign dictator.

Postscript 14/08/20. Carl Schmitt lives in Trumpian law: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/01...

View all my reviews