Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) was the most brilliant and troubling political theorist of the twentieth century. His concepts—the friend-enemy distinction, the state of exception, political theology, decisionism—have become indispensable tools for analyzing politics even as his Nazi collaboration makes engagement with his work morally fraught. Schmitt forces confrontation with fundamental questions: What is politics? What does sovereignty mean? What happens when law fails?
Schmitt’s influence extends across the political spectrum. Realists, conservatives, and scholars of authoritarianism draw on his analysis of power. Left-wing theorists (including Giorgio Agamben, Chantal Mouffe, and Slavoj Zizek) use his concepts to critique liberalism. International relations scholars invoke his account of sovereignty and conflict. Understanding Schmitt is essential for anyone who thinks seriously about politics—but that understanding must include his moral failures.
The Person¶
Career in Weimar Germany¶
Schmitt rose to prominence during Germany’s democratic experiment:
- Born in Plettenberg, Westphalia, to a Catholic family
- Legal education at Berlin, Munich, and Strasbourg
- Professor at various German universities (Greifswald, Bonn, Berlin, Cologne)
- Prolific author of works on constitutional law and political theory
- Major figure in Weimar legal and intellectual debates
His Weimar writings defended the republic’s constitution while analyzing its vulnerabilities—making his later betrayal especially bitter.
Nazi Collaboration¶
In 1933, Schmitt joined the Nazi Party and became a leading jurist of the regime:
- Justified Hitler’s extralegal killings during the Night of the Long Knives
- Wrote anti-Semitic articles
- Participated in campaigns against Jewish influence in German law
- Served as president of the Union of National Socialist Jurists
- Provided intellectual legitimation for Nazi power
Though marginalized by the SS by 1936 (suspected of opportunism rather than true belief), Schmitt never faced serious denazification and never expressed remorse.
Post-War Career¶
After the war, Schmitt was interned but never tried:
- Retired to Plettenberg
- Continued writing and receiving visitors
- Maintained extensive correspondence
- Influenced a new generation despite (or because of?) his notoriety
- Never publicly repudiated his Nazi involvement
His silence on the moral questions surrounding his past troubled even sympathetic readers.
Personal Complexity¶
Schmitt was:
- Intellectually brilliant and staggeringly erudite
- Personally charming to those he chose to cultivate
- Bitterly resentful of exclusion from post-war academic life
- Capable of both profound insight and moral blindness
- A Catholic whose religious sensibility informed his thought
The combination of brilliance and corruption makes him uniquely difficult to assess.
Key Ideas¶
The Concept of the Political¶
Schmitt’s most famous formulation appears in “The Concept of the Political” (1932):
“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”
The friend-enemy distinction is not moral (good vs. evil), aesthetic (beautiful vs. ugly), or economic (profitable vs. unprofitable). It is specifically political—concerning the grouping of human beings into collectivities that may, in extreme cases, kill and die.
The enemy is not a personal adversary or competitor but the public enemy—the hostis rather than the inimicus. The enemy is simply “the other, the stranger,” existentially different in a way that makes conflict possible.
Intensity defines the political: Any opposition—religious, economic, ethnic—can become political when it reaches sufficient intensity to generate friend-enemy groupings. The political is not a separate domain but a degree of intensity.
Sovereignty and the Exception¶
In “Political Theology” (1922), Schmitt defined sovereignty:
“Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”
The state of exception is the moment when normal law is suspended to meet an existential threat. The constitution may say who holds emergency powers, but the true sovereign is whoever actually decides when an emergency exists and what to do about it.
Decisionism: What matters is not the content of the decision but that a decision is made. In crisis, someone must decide; the ability to make the exceptional decision is the essence of sovereignty.
Against normativism: Liberal legal theory assumes laws can govern all situations. Schmitt insists that law presupposes normal conditions; in crisis, law cannot determine its own suspension. Someone must decide outside the law.
Political Theology¶
Schmitt argued that political concepts are secularized theological concepts:
“All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.”
The sovereign corresponds to God—the omnipotent decision-maker.
The miracle corresponds to the exception—the suspension of natural law.
Legal order corresponds to divine providence—the normal functioning of creation.
This is not just historical observation but analytical claim: political authority has a theological structure regardless of actual religious belief.
The Nomos of the Earth¶
In his post-war magnum opus, “The Nomos of the Earth” (1950), Schmitt examined spatial foundations of international order:
Nomos means more than law—it is the fundamental spatial ordering of territory, the act of appropriation, division, and production that establishes any legal order.
The European nomos: The Westphalian system created spatial order by distinguishing European inter-state law from extra-European colonial space. Wars within Europe were limited; violence outside was unrestricted.
The end of the European nomos: The twentieth century destroyed this order. American universalism and the criminalization of war eliminated the distinctions that made limited war possible.
The new nomos: What comes next is unclear—perhaps American hegemony, perhaps new spatial divisions, perhaps chaos.
Großraum Theory¶
Schmitt developed the concept of Großraum (large space):
- Large powers naturally dominate their regions
- The Monroe Doctrine exemplified Großraum thinking
- Each major power has its spatial sphere
- International law should recognize these spheres
- Universal principles mask hegemonic ambitions
This theory influenced Nazi concepts of Lebensraum, though Schmitt’s formulation was juridical rather than racial.
Major Works¶
“Political Theology” (1922)¶
The short book that established Schmitt’s fame:
- Defined sovereignty as decision on the exception
- Argued for the theological structure of political concepts
- Critiqued liberal legalism and normativism
- Established the “decisionist” approach
“The Concept of the Political” (1932)¶
Schmitt’s most influential work:
- Introduced the friend-enemy distinction
- Argued that politics cannot be reduced to other domains
- Critiqued liberal attempts to neutralize politics
- Became essential reading across political perspectives
“The Nomos of the Earth” (1950)¶
The mature work of Schmitt’s later period:
- Analyzed the spatial foundations of international order
- Traced the rise and fall of the European international system
- Examined the consequences of American hegemony
- Offered a spatial rather than normative approach to international law
“Legality and Legitimacy” (1932)¶
Written as Weimar collapsed:
- Analyzed the distinction between legality (procedural correctness) and legitimacy (substantive rightness)
- Warned that Weimar’s neutrality made it vulnerable to anti-democratic forces
- Advocated presidential powers to defend the constitution
- Often read as justification for authoritarian measures
Influence¶
Political Realism¶
Schmitt’s analysis of power and conflict influenced realist thought:
- Hans Morgenthau was his student (complicated relationship)
- His critique of liberal universalism resonates with realists
- The friend-enemy distinction captures conflict’s irreducibility
- His analysis of sovereignty informs international relations theory
Left-Wing Theory¶
Surprisingly, Schmitt has been taken up by the left:
Giorgio Agamben uses the exception to analyze contemporary sovereignty and the politics of bare life.
Chantal Mouffe uses the friend-enemy distinction to argue for an “agonistic” democracy that acknowledges conflict.
Walter Benjamin corresponded with Schmitt; his concept of “state of exception” parallels Schmitt’s.
These appropriations are controversial—using a Nazi’s concepts for critical purposes—but have been influential.
Legal Theory¶
Schmitt shaped debates about:
- Constitutionalism and emergency powers
- The relationship between law and politics
- Sovereignty in domestic and international law
- The limits of liberal legalism
Post-9/11 Relevance¶
Schmitt’s concepts gained new currency after September 11:
- The “war on terror” raised questions about exception and emergency
- Guantanamo and “enemy combatants” echoed Schmittian categories
- Debates about executive power invoked his analysis
- Critics used his work to diagnose the security state
Authoritarian Movements¶
Schmitt provides resources for anti-liberal politics:
- His critique of liberalism appeals to authoritarians
- Alexander Dugin cites him extensively
- New Right thinkers draw on his work
- His analysis of political conflict serves those who reject liberal consensus
Criticisms¶
The Nazi Collaboration¶
The fundamental critique is moral:
- Schmitt joined the Nazi Party voluntarily
- He provided intellectual justification for tyranny
- He participated in anti-Semitic campaigns
- He never expressed remorse
- His work cannot be separated from this history
Some argue his ideas should be rejected as tainted; others argue analytical value can survive moral failure.
The Problem of Engagement¶
Engaging with Schmitt raises questions:
- Does using his concepts legitimate him?
- Can tools be separated from their maker?
- What does it mean to learn from a Nazi?
- Is “critical” engagement possible or self-deceptive?
There is no easy answer; each reader must decide.
Substantive Critiques¶
Beyond biography, critics challenge his arguments:
Against decisionism: Law and norms do constrain even in crisis. Pure decisionism is neither accurate nor desirable.
Against the friend-enemy distinction: Politics need not be reducible to conflict. Liberalism’s attempts to domesticate conflict are not simply naive.
Against his account of liberalism: Schmitt’s liberalism is a strawman. Actual liberal thinkers are more sophisticated than he allows.
Against political theology: The structural parallel between politics and theology need not mean politics is theological.
The Critique of Depoliticization¶
A specific concern:
- Schmitt claims liberalism depoliticizes
- But his theory also depoliticizes—by making the exception extra-political
- The sovereign decision is beyond political contestation
- This is no less a neutralization than liberal legalism
Contemporary Relevance¶
The Return of Great Power Politics¶
Schmitt’s analysis applies to current competition:
- Friend-enemy groupings intensify between major powers
- The liberal international order faces challenges
- Spatial thinking (spheres of influence) returns to discourse
- Universal norms are contested by particular powers
Democratic Erosion¶
Schmitt’s Weimar analysis resonates:
- How do democracies defend themselves against anti-democratic movements?
- What are the limits of neutral procedures?
- When does emergency justify exceptional measures?
- How do constitutions die?
Populism and Anti-Liberalism¶
Contemporary movements echo Schmittian themes:
- Rejection of liberal universalism
- Embrace of friend-enemy thinking
- Claims to represent “the people” against elites
- Challenges to legal constraints on executive power
Emergency Governance¶
The COVID-19 pandemic raised Schmittian questions:
- Who decides on the emergency?
- What are the limits of exceptional measures?
- How do emergencies end?
- What is the relationship between health and sovereignty?
Conclusion¶
Carl Schmitt presents an insoluble problem. His concepts—the political as friend-enemy intensity, sovereignty as decision on the exception, political theology, the nomos of the earth—are among the most powerful analytical tools available for understanding politics. His collaboration with the Nazi regime was unforgivable.
Attempts to resolve this tension fail. Rejecting his work entirely means losing valuable insights. Embracing it uncritically means ignoring how ideas connect to actions. The most honest approach is to use his concepts while remaining conscious of where they come from and who deployed them—and for what.
Schmitt’s enduring relevance reflects something important about politics itself. His insistence that politics cannot be reduced to economics, morality, or law; his recognition that conflict is irreducible; his analysis of sovereignty in crisis—these capture dimensions of political life that more optimistic theories obscure.
Whether we wish it were otherwise, Schmitt’s questions are real questions. What happens when law cannot resolve conflicts? Who decides in emergencies? Is liberal universalism really universal, or is it a particular tradition claiming universality? These questions do not disappear because a Nazi raised them.
The task for serious readers is neither to sanitize Schmitt nor to dismiss him but to engage critically—taking what is valuable, rejecting what is pernicious, and always remembering what he did and what his ideas were used for. This is uncomfortable but necessary work for anyone who seeks to understand politics in its full complexity.
Sources & Further Reading¶
Carl Schmitt, “The Concept of the Political” (1932, expanded edition) - The essential Schmitt text, containing his most famous formulation. Short, dense, and endlessly debated. Any engagement with Schmitt must start here.
Carl Schmitt, “Political Theology” (1922) - The classic statement of sovereignty as decision on the exception. Also brief but foundational for understanding Schmitt’s approach.
Jan-Werner Mueller, “A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought” (2003) - An intellectual history examining how Schmitt has been received, interpreted, and appropriated across the political spectrum. Essential for understanding his influence.
Gopal Balakrishnan, “The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt” (2000) - A comprehensive study of Schmitt’s thought in its historical context. Balakrishnan takes Schmitt seriously as a thinker while not excusing his politics.
William Scheuerman, “Carl Schmitt: The End of Law” (1999) - A critical examination of Schmitt’s legal theory, arguing that his decisionism undermines the rule of law. Important for understanding the stakes of his arguments.