One of the things I find interesting is that many critics of President Obama claim that he is a socialist. Any regulation of the free market ends up being a socialist plot. Any friendships and associations he has which can link him to socialists proves he is also a socialist. Indeed, guilt by association is one of the basic tactics used to create a conspiracy theory whereby he is seen as some sort of vast socialist plot to destroy the United States.
All the same time, we see his critics are often advocating policies which come directly out of the Soviet Union. Migration is a problem: build a strong border (with a fence or a wall). Someone appears suspect? Ask them to carry papers wherever they go to prove they are good, loyal citizens of the state. State security trumps personal liberty. The right ideology is necessary; if you don’t follow it, you are a traitor to the state. The Minutemen, the Oath Keepers, and the American Enterprise Institute will be there to make sure of your orthodoxy.
Ok. We don’t only see such behavior in communist countries; right race, right ideology, right security were all the concerns of the fascist state as well. It is interesting to note that the way Hitler was able to hypnotize the nation was through his constant radio broadcasts of his ideology. It universalized his world view. Those hearing it all the time soon were seduced — they believed without question, the same way we see the ideologues getting their audience to believe without question today. And there was one thing which united all fascists: their hatred for communism.
Despite the insinuation of many, President Obama is not a socialist. When socialists deny his association with them, it is not because he is involved as an undercover agent of some great socialist plot. It is because President Obama follows and accepts the directives of a regulated free market — he follows one form of capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless. Not all of his critics are fascists. Just because there is a similarity between their tactics and the fascist does not mean they are fascist themselves. Indeed. I don’t see them as being fascists in the proper sense, but rather, following the kind of thought which led to the rise of fascism. Carl Schmitt is very representative of their thought.
If one reads Carl Schmitt, one can easily see the similarity of thought between modern conservatives and the legal theory which led to fascism. In Schmitt, we find a big, strong sovereign state at war with its enemies. War is never an issue of justice, but state survival. The state, because it must survive, can and must do whatever is necessary in order to survive and have victory over her enemies. The sovereign alone defines what is to be done without question. If one questions the sovereign, they become the enemy of the state – internal enemies must be dealt with just as much as external ones. The rule of law must not be questioned — the rule of law is the will of the sovereign. Law must be strictly enforced to make order out of chaos and to keep everyone safe.
One of the few differences between Schmitt and the neo-Schmittians is in how they describe war. The neo-Schmittians tend to understand some pretense has to be given to justify war. For Schmitt, there is no such thing as a just war; war is a thing of necessity as enemies come across each other and seek to preserve their own sovereign way of life. For the Neo-Schmittian, war now has to be justified, but its justifications lie in the dictates of the sovereign. Both agree the sovereign decides when war is necessary and the sovereign is right, just the second thinks that the sovereign must explain his reasoning (not because one can question it, but because knowing it will help in the execution of the war itself).
It is interesting that many who have advocated such strong state sovereignty are also the ones who have had the harshest words against President Obama. He is seen as a challenge to their ideology. What are they to make with a sovereign whose ideas go against their own? Some have tried to find a way to say he is not really sovereign (hence the birther movement). Others try to look at what he is doing that is advocating their ideology and promote that side of his reign (such as his continued execution of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a strong-arm tactic against Iran). But I think in the future, he could be used as the exception which proves the rule. He can be used as the sovereign who showed us why we need a strong sovereign with a strong emphasis on rules and the authoritarian state to keep us safe and secure. But this can only happen if the neo-Schmittians are allowed to continue unquestioned, and they end up getting unquestionable power.
In Arizona, we see a test case for the United States. Even if the new immigration law is overturned, we can see how many people have risen in its support. They have raised up the idol of absolute state sovereignty. We must topple it now before its priests set up a sacrificial system geared to keep it in power.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In