Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 09-09-2006, 08:40 AM

ok then.

just to tie off one or two details as this thread twitches toward death....

1. the approach to law within the bush administration--it's preference for the state of emergency, its use of executive mechanisms to get around legislative actions, the establishment of a parallel extra-legal prison system based on assumptions rooted in the state of exception or emergency etc.---all of that is directly rooted in schmitt and amounts to a legal justification for dictatorship.

the present political situation is such that this legal theory is simply a position outlined by the executive branch that has not been shifted to anything more than a position outlined by the executive branch.

it is a dangerous legal philosophy for a branch within a democratic goverment to adopt because--if you actually read schmitt, that is if you actually know anything about the philosophy--which it would be good for discussion to be able to assume--it is probably the most anti-democratic position to be outlined in the last 100 years.

IF another attack or another war, say, were to happen in a context where the executive branch is using such a position to rationalize its positions, the consequences would be very bad indeed.

BUT--it has not happened, and with any good fortune, the bush administration will slide into the ash-heap of history without that happening.

SO--what the argument about legal theory amounts to is an argument about the potential for a type of fascism.

it is a real one, but it is potential.

the features outlined in the op--and apparently in other ops (thanks host) are in the main more general---they are features of petit bourgeois radical nationalism--which are recurrent aspects of extreme right ideology in the united states that have been around, in various forms, for some time.

the united states is a kind of jurassic park of outmoded nationalist-based ideology.

but given the sterling success of the bush administration, one would expect that one effect of the past 6 years will be the casting of this far-right radical nationalism back into the margins of political discourse.

2. seaver: had this thread not deteriorated into yet another example of the problems for having a civil debate concerned with questions of substance that are posed for tfp as a microcommunity by the particular folk who speak in the name of the right, i would have responded to your post above (somewhere) that the united states is not a fascist state

but that the ideology of the bush administration can be matched point for point with such an ideology. and their legal philosophy is a particular problem within that.

but so far, the system of checks has worked. it may have been working because the rightwing legislature is mostly concerned with protecting its turf as over against the executive rather than because there is a principled objection to the positions elaborated by the bush administration--but that does not matter functionally--it has worked so far.

3. it is in a general way a shame that the antiwar movement has trafficked in accusations about fascism in the unted states that is without any nuance, and so is little more than inflammatory nonsense.
the word has been ground to dust repeated before that, however.

but that crude use of the category does not change anything about the ideology articulated by the administration. it is a dangerous ideology.

i am surprised to see american conservatives defending an administration the legal philosophy of which amounts to an argument for dictatorship.
i would imagine that such arguments would contradict the libertarian aspects of conservative politics.
in fact, i would expect that most conservatives would find the idea of a far right dictatorship completely repellent and would oppose it once one was in place (were that to happen)
explicitly authoritarian politics seems a minority position, even in debates on tfp.

on the other hand, you can see from looking across threads at conservative arguments here that they can be tricked into endorsing such positions by the hysteria generated via the "war on terror"---you see it in the defenses mounted of the administration's extra-legal prison system, in the defenses mounted to the administration's use of torture---all of these are rooted in the logic of the state of emergency or state of exception--if you buy that, then anything goes.

but that is not the whole of conservative politial doctrine--it even runs counter to much of it.

so i am surprised to see the same folk arguing in a generall democratic direction in one type of thread, and in the opposite direction in other types of threads.

it make me wonder if the loyalty to the bush administration because they are a conservative administration blinds folk on the right to aspects of what that administration stands for.

you would think internal critiques would be possible, wouldn't you?

09-09-2006, 08:40 AM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok then. just to tie off one or two details as this thread twitches toward death.... 1. the approach to law within the bush administration--it's preference for the state of emergency, its use of executive mechanisms to get around legislative actions, the establishment of a parallel extra-legal prison system based on assumptions rooted in the state of exception or emergency etc.---all of that is directly rooted in schmitt and amounts to a legal justification for dictatorship. the present political situation is such that this legal theory is simply a position outlined by the executive branch that has not been shifted to anything more than a position outlined by the executive branch. it is a dangerous legal philosophy for a branch within a democratic goverment to adopt because--if you actually read schmitt, that is if you actually know anything about the philosophy--which it would be good for discussion to be able to assume--it is probably the most anti-democratic position to be outlined in the last 100 years. IF another attack or another war, say, were to happen in a context where the executive branch is using such a position to rationalize its positions, the consequences would be very bad indeed. BUT--it has not happened, and with any good fortune, the bush administration will slide into the ash-heap of history without that happening. SO--what the argument about legal theory amounts to is an argument about the potential for a type of fascism. it is a real one, but it is potential. the features outlined in the op--and apparently in other ops (thanks host) are in the main more general---they are features of petit bourgeois radical nationalism--which are recurrent aspects of extreme right ideology in the united states that have been around, in various forms, for some time. the united states is a kind of jurassic park of outmoded nationalist-based ideology. but given the sterling success of the bush administration, one would expect that one effect of the past 6 years will be the casting of this far-right radical nationalism back into the margins of political discourse. 2. seaver: had this thread not deteriorated into yet another example of the problems for having a civil debate concerned with questions of substance that are posed for tfp as a microcommunity by the particular folk who speak in the name of the right, i would have responded to your post above (somewhere) that the united states is not a fascist state but that the ideology of the bush administration can be matched point for point with such an ideology. and their legal philosophy is a particular problem within that. but so far, the system of checks has worked. it may have been working because the rightwing legislature is mostly concerned with protecting its turf as over against the executive rather than because there is a principled objection to the positions elaborated by the bush administration--but that does not matter functionally--it has worked so far. 3. it is in a general way a shame that the antiwar movement has trafficked in accusations about fascism in the unted states that is without any nuance, and so is little more than inflammatory nonsense. the word has been ground to dust repeated before that, however. but that crude use of the category does not change anything about the ideology articulated by the administration. it is a dangerous ideology. i am surprised to see american conservatives defending an administration the legal philosophy of which amounts to an argument for dictatorship. i would imagine that such arguments would contradict the libertarian aspects of conservative politics. in fact, i would expect that most conservatives would find the idea of a far right dictatorship completely repellent and would oppose it once one was in place (were that to happen) explicitly authoritarian politics seems a minority position, even in debates on tfp. on the other hand, you can see from looking across threads at conservative arguments here that they can be tricked into endorsing such positions by the hysteria generated via the "war on terror"---you see it in the defenses mounted of the administration's extra-legal prison system, in the defenses mounted to the administration's use of torture---all of these are rooted in the logic of the state of emergency or state of exception--if you buy that, then anything goes. but that is not the whole of conservative politial doctrine--it even runs counter to much of it. so i am surprised to see the same folk arguing in a generall democratic direction in one type of thread, and in the opposite direction in other types of threads. it make me wonder if the loyalty to the bush administration because they are a conservative administration blinds folk on the right to aspects of what that administration stands for. you would think internal critiques would be possible, wouldn't you? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite