Abstract

The piece responds to critics of Scheuerman’s END OF LAW: CARL SCHMIT IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. Despite our disagreements, the book’s critics and I share the view that Schmitt speaks to our times, albeit in deeply troubling ways. Precisely how and why Schmitt remains pertinent, however, remains a matter of dispute. Inspired by the un-Schmittian hope that deliberation might buttress our common quest to overcome democracy’s present crisis, my response endeavours to identify those disagreements. Though I am unable to address all of them satisfactorily, my aim is to advance our conversation. Most important, the critics and I disagree somewhat about how best to understand Schmitt’s relationship to contemporary authoritarian populism.