A revolutionary devolution? I think that has to be an aspect. The speed at which things seem to be developing suggest that which is being replaced/transformed was tottering. The television comment was a reference to the Gil Scott-Heron jazz number.
I got the reference. I’ve been making this “it won’t be televised” or “what is being televised is not what it is” comment all over for a while now. We’re being shown a show of speedy change. I don’t buy it. Do you know where most federal spending actually goes every year? On both the mandatory and discretionary sides, the vast majority of the fed budget every yr is eaten up by social security, unemployment, health and military. None of that’s been even looked at, let alone touched by DOGE. As far as I’m aware anyway.
I was pretty sure you would have gotten the reference.
The vast majority of us would need to admit to not knowing exactly what is up and exactly what the motivations are: we're not in those rooms. At least Social Security is what is getting the media focus the past couple of days. I think the big question is how much change ends up being effected. No doubt, there is a lot of hyperbole going on. My sense is that it is not just that. There are too many things going in directions against what until yesterday would have been considered core to the existing global regime. To what degree that ends up being fundamentally changed and to what degree just tweaked accompanied by rhetoric will be the deciding factor. I think (but could be wrong) there is a willingness for a good bit of havoc wreaking at the top of the current administration. Not all havoc is good. But it tends to have an impact.
Not much has been finalized yet. IF USAID is gone, that is a lot of international (and domestic) mischief that at least has to be resituated. IF RFK does 20% of what many folks hope at HHS, that is significant. IF a set of tariff and other nationalist oriented economic policies (borders) significantly disrupt the free flow of capital and labor, that is no longer neo-liberalism. IF Title IX, etc..., are brought back into contact with reality that is not culturally insignificant. IF a multi-polar world is accepted or even assumed, that is not neo-conservatism. IF the size (including just number of people employed) of government significantly decreases, that is probably in the right direction.
At the very least, I think one is compelled to admit that these sorts of initiatives are not just continuing things in the same direction they have been going all along. There would be no mistaking Trump initiatives for Macron or Stormer initiatives.
...and to the point of the actual essay- I think there is a willingness to work beyond legal boundaries and to quickly reshape institutions if need be. That is significant.
You're misinterpretting Schmitt here and confusing a couple different critiques he has (decision as the basis of law, liberalism in contention with democracy, and the friend-enemy distinction) all into one thing.
Pretty much. The essay I link to in this one is more careful in sorting out his 'decisionism,' 'friend-enemy distinction', and 'state of exception.' I do qualify my summary of Schmitt here as 'very briefly;' I assume that recognizes a lack of nuance for present purposes.
A fuller handling would also need to get into whether Trump/the current administration has actually, on Schmittian terms, declared a state of exception. The case could certainly be made that they have not in that there has been no official suspension of the Constitution etc.... Nevertheless, there is a willingness to push against constitutional boundaries and my intent was to put a lot of weight on this statement by Trump that suggest it is actually a moment to be understood in broadly Schmittian terms. I took T's statement to at least signal a willingness to act beyond law to 'save the country.'
In a somewhat lengthy note I also criticize Schmitt for rejecting Natural Law with no reference to his thought as to what does underly positive law as developed in Nomos of the Earth etc.... I'm for nuance and detail which is why most of my writing is 3-6 essay series. However, I'm interested in interpreting the historical event and drawing out its significance (and think Schmitt sheds light on that), not in developing the thought of Schmitt itself in this brief essay. Anyway, I took your comment seriously and hence chose to respond in some detail. Hopefully that seems more or less fair.
Also you should read Agamben on Schmitt if you haven't already. He talks a lot about how modern states are in these "forever" states of emergency and brings in Schmitt while offering interesting critiques of him
Thanks for the insightful comment, I have to admit I wasn't familiar with your work so thanks for explaining. This just popped on my feed and I'm tired of all the midwit takes on Schmitt. I'll check your stuff out
I always felt uneasy with the Blue Labor/Red Tory rap--not the I wasn't attracted to it. I could never quite put my finger on my discomfort. Now, I think maybe it's because that was just a "kinder, gentler" form of neoliberalism. Same goes for Deneen and MacIntyre.
We shall see. I have been quite interested, theoretically, for some time. Not that I'm 'in'. But they were carving out the territory in a way. Well, I am quite respectful toward Mac. The others, plenty of things to critique while sympathizing in some regards.
Can you link to where you talk about Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth? I've read the book before and don't agree with your assessment (ie. I thought he was pretty explicit Land appropriation is what he posits as the basis of law)
I have not written on this. I just noted it as one more glancing mention of Schmitt that were I focused on Schmitt (instead of the current moment), I would need to have delved into that. I didn't indicate what he sees as underlying positive law other than to note where he discusses that. I only indicated that if I were critiquing Schmitt fairly and mentioned Natural Law (which in one tradition is what undergirds positive law), it would be incumbent upon to note that he does not fail to address the theoretical question of undergirding positive law with something that is 'deeper' than that.
But it’s not a revolution. It’s a devolution; and it’s not being televised. What is being televised is a simulacrum of a “revolution.”
A revolutionary devolution? I think that has to be an aspect. The speed at which things seem to be developing suggest that which is being replaced/transformed was tottering. The television comment was a reference to the Gil Scott-Heron jazz number.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhcyQ9fETuk
I got the reference. I’ve been making this “it won’t be televised” or “what is being televised is not what it is” comment all over for a while now. We’re being shown a show of speedy change. I don’t buy it. Do you know where most federal spending actually goes every year? On both the mandatory and discretionary sides, the vast majority of the fed budget every yr is eaten up by social security, unemployment, health and military. None of that’s been even looked at, let alone touched by DOGE. As far as I’m aware anyway.
I was pretty sure you would have gotten the reference.
The vast majority of us would need to admit to not knowing exactly what is up and exactly what the motivations are: we're not in those rooms. At least Social Security is what is getting the media focus the past couple of days. I think the big question is how much change ends up being effected. No doubt, there is a lot of hyperbole going on. My sense is that it is not just that. There are too many things going in directions against what until yesterday would have been considered core to the existing global regime. To what degree that ends up being fundamentally changed and to what degree just tweaked accompanied by rhetoric will be the deciding factor. I think (but could be wrong) there is a willingness for a good bit of havoc wreaking at the top of the current administration. Not all havoc is good. But it tends to have an impact.
Not much has been finalized yet. IF USAID is gone, that is a lot of international (and domestic) mischief that at least has to be resituated. IF RFK does 20% of what many folks hope at HHS, that is significant. IF a set of tariff and other nationalist oriented economic policies (borders) significantly disrupt the free flow of capital and labor, that is no longer neo-liberalism. IF Title IX, etc..., are brought back into contact with reality that is not culturally insignificant. IF a multi-polar world is accepted or even assumed, that is not neo-conservatism. IF the size (including just number of people employed) of government significantly decreases, that is probably in the right direction.
At the very least, I think one is compelled to admit that these sorts of initiatives are not just continuing things in the same direction they have been going all along. There would be no mistaking Trump initiatives for Macron or Stormer initiatives.
Glad you put in all this detail... not 'business as usual', whatever else it may be.
Starmer. Auto-corrupt.
Ah, and I recognize you are more likely to get into those rooms, or know the people in the rooms, than I.
...and to the point of the actual essay- I think there is a willingness to work beyond legal boundaries and to quickly reshape institutions if need be. That is significant.
You're misinterpretting Schmitt here and confusing a couple different critiques he has (decision as the basis of law, liberalism in contention with democracy, and the friend-enemy distinction) all into one thing.
Pretty much. The essay I link to in this one is more careful in sorting out his 'decisionism,' 'friend-enemy distinction', and 'state of exception.' I do qualify my summary of Schmitt here as 'very briefly;' I assume that recognizes a lack of nuance for present purposes.
A fuller handling would also need to get into whether Trump/the current administration has actually, on Schmittian terms, declared a state of exception. The case could certainly be made that they have not in that there has been no official suspension of the Constitution etc.... Nevertheless, there is a willingness to push against constitutional boundaries and my intent was to put a lot of weight on this statement by Trump that suggest it is actually a moment to be understood in broadly Schmittian terms. I took T's statement to at least signal a willingness to act beyond law to 'save the country.'
In a somewhat lengthy note I also criticize Schmitt for rejecting Natural Law with no reference to his thought as to what does underly positive law as developed in Nomos of the Earth etc.... I'm for nuance and detail which is why most of my writing is 3-6 essay series. However, I'm interested in interpreting the historical event and drawing out its significance (and think Schmitt sheds light on that), not in developing the thought of Schmitt itself in this brief essay. Anyway, I took your comment seriously and hence chose to respond in some detail. Hopefully that seems more or less fair.
Also you should read Agamben on Schmitt if you haven't already. He talks a lot about how modern states are in these "forever" states of emergency and brings in Schmitt while offering interesting critiques of him
Thanks for the insightful comment, I have to admit I wasn't familiar with your work so thanks for explaining. This just popped on my feed and I'm tired of all the midwit takes on Schmitt. I'll check your stuff out
Thank you.
Here are a few related thoughts.
https://jstuckey.substack.com/p/are-the-left-and-right-uniting-switching
> Liberalism was stillborn as far as I’m concerned.
Then did liberalism ever really exist? Can you be post-[something that never was]?
I like that question. Intellectually stillborn. Lots of actual effects though.
Sounds great! Yet another Domer.
I always felt uneasy with the Blue Labor/Red Tory rap--not the I wasn't attracted to it. I could never quite put my finger on my discomfort. Now, I think maybe it's because that was just a "kinder, gentler" form of neoliberalism. Same goes for Deneen and MacIntyre.
We shall see. I have been quite interested, theoretically, for some time. Not that I'm 'in'. But they were carving out the territory in a way. Well, I am quite respectful toward Mac. The others, plenty of things to critique while sympathizing in some regards.
Can you link to where you talk about Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth? I've read the book before and don't agree with your assessment (ie. I thought he was pretty explicit Land appropriation is what he posits as the basis of law)
I have not written on this. I just noted it as one more glancing mention of Schmitt that were I focused on Schmitt (instead of the current moment), I would need to have delved into that. I didn't indicate what he sees as underlying positive law other than to note where he discusses that. I only indicated that if I were critiquing Schmitt fairly and mentioned Natural Law (which in one tradition is what undergirds positive law), it would be incumbent upon to note that he does not fail to address the theoretical question of undergirding positive law with something that is 'deeper' than that.