Will the Real Carl Schmitt Please Stand Up? An Interpretation of Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism.

Nearly four decades have passed since George Schwab introduced Carl Schmitt to the English-speaking world with the groundbreaking monograph The Challenge of the Exception. Scholars have since attempted to understand in what manner Schmitt ought to be interpreted. I contend that the parameters of Schmitt scholarship are overly restricted, thereby fostering a debate that is incomplete. The following questions have generated much controversy. To what extent does Schmitt's Weimar political thought represent a thoroughgoing anti-liberalism? Did Schmitt's Weimar work lead him to embrace Nazism? Scholars who allege that Schmitt's thought is unredeemably anti-liberal and led to Nazism are known as 'detractors.' Those who perceive significantly less anti-liberalism in his Weimar writings are typically known as 'apologists.' Where detractors discern an unqualified assault on liberalism, apologists identify 'political realism.' Detractors identify an intellectual continuity that includes most Weimar and Nazi period writings but apologists remain unpersuaded. They contend that Schmitt's work from the Nazi period is fundamentally different from his Weimar writings. Although a more nuanced division of Schmitt scholars into 'strong apologist,' 'weak apologist,' and 'strong detractor' has been proposed, I argue that these interpretations are deficient and thereby provide a limited understanding of Schmitt. Accordingly, I carve out an interpretive space for the inclusion of a fourth interpretation of Schmitt: the 'weak detractor' position. In defense of this 'weak detractor' position, I offer an interpretation of Schmitt that takes his anti-liberalism seriously but does not go as far as the 'strong detractor' interpretation that Schmitt inevitably became a Nazi. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]