The Shadow of Carl Schmitt: How Geopolitical Anxiety and Internal Weakness Threaten American Liberal Democracy
The rise of China is often framed as an economic and military challenge to the United States. Though, its impact extends far deeper, subtly reshaping American political thought and contributing to a risky erosion of constitutional norms.this isn’t a direct consequence of Beijing’s intent, but rather a consequence of how the perceived threat is being interpreted and utilized to justify an increasingly assertive, and perhaps illiberal, executive branch. The current trajectory reveals a disturbing resonance with the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt, a controversial 20th-century German jurist whose ideas are gaining traction both within American power structures and, ironically, within China’s intellectual circles.
For decades, the American constitutional system has operated, albeit imperfectly, on principles of divided authority, rule of law, and robust debate. However, a growing trend – the “unitary executive” theory – posits an expansive view of presidential power, envisioning the President as the ultimate sovereign decision-maker, unbound by traditional checks and balances. This isn’t a novel concept, but its recent acceleration is deeply concerning.The willingness of presidential advisors to embrace Schmittian concepts - prioritizing decisive action over procedural constraints, and defining politics fundamentally as a struggle between friend and enemy – signals a profound shift in the understanding of American governance. Crucially, the relative silence from Congress, failing to vigorously defend its constitutional prerogatives, is not merely a passive observation, but a critical symptom of a system under strain.
the invocation of China as a national security imperative has served as a powerful catalyst for this shift. While not the cause of the expanding executive power, it has provided the justification. The narrative of a rising,illiberal competitor has been leveraged to argue for expedited decision-making,reduced oversight,and a willingness to bypass established legal processes in the name of protecting American workers and national interests. This echoes a dangerous logic: the urgency of the threat necessitates a concentration of power, even at the expense of constitutional principles.
This dynamic is particularly striking when viewed through the lens of intellectual history. Francis Fukuyama famously argued for the triumph of liberal democracy as the “end of history,” suggesting its inherent attractiveness and eventual global dominance. Schmitt, however, offered a contrasting viewpoint. He didn’t predict inevitability, but rather identified tendencies. He argued that the very existence of a powerful, choice political model – like China today – could exert a gravitational pull away from liberalism, even within liberal states, ironically in a desperate attempt to defend the liberal international order.
And China itself is increasingly engaging with Schmitt’s work. Until 2003,scholarly interest in Schmitt within China was minimal. Since then, references to his theories in Chinese academic publications have exploded, increasing over thirtyfold. Schmitt has become, in effect, China’s answer to Fukuyama – a Western thinker offering a compelling critique of liberal democracy’s perceived weaknesses.This “Schmitt fever” within Chinese intellectual circles suggests a deliberate exploration of alternative political frameworks, potentially informing thier strategic approach to global competition.
Navigating the Path Away From Illiberalism – and Back
However, Schmitt’s theories are not deterministic. Unlike fukuyama’s vision of a final ideological endpoint, Schmitt identified tendencies, not inevitabilities. This offers a crucial point of hope.
Schmitt’s work also implicitly identifies a potential path back towards a more robust liberal order. He understood the dangers of a society consumed by comfort and security, a society where citizens lose the will to defend their own freedoms – Nietzsche’s “last man.” This “last man” on the Schmittian path isn’t necessarily a fervent supporter of authoritarianism, but rather someone who grows weary of constant crisis and longs for the predictability of established routines. This apathy, this refusal to engage in the “existential politics” demanded by perceived emergencies, inadvertently empowers institutions like Congress to reclaim their constitutional authority.
The challenge, then, is not simply to identify the threat, but to re-energize the commitment to the principles that underpin liberal democracy. This requires a basic reassessment of the ideological, security, and economic foundations that once bound the United States to its allies during the cold War. Strengthening these alliances – fostering a sense of shared purpose and mutual benefit – would reinforce the ”friend” in Schmitt’s calculus, thereby limiting the justifications for remarkable measures that erode constitutional safeguards.
Unluckily, the current geopolitical landscape offers little encouragement. Across Europe, from the Czech Republic to the United Kingdom, right-wing populist movements are gaining ground, questioning the benefits of the postwar liberal order. This widespread questioning of core democratic values suggests that the West’s flirtation with Schmittian illiberalism is only just beginning.
Reversing this trend will not be easy
![Season 1 Finale Review: [Show Name] Delivers a Stunning Conclusion](https://i0.wp.com/consequence.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/pluribus-episode-9-finale-rhea-seehorn-2.jpg?resize=330%2C220&ssl=1 "Season 1 Finale Review: [Show Name] Delivers a Stunning Conclusion")
