One

of the most telling criticisms Carl Schmitt makes in The Crisis of Parliamentart Democracy is the claim
that liberalism (in the sense of representative government and freedoms of speech and association)
contradicts democracy (in the sense of identifying law with the people's will). Schmitt suggests that a
passionate, aroused people will inevitably see the procedural and substantive constraints that liberalism
imposes on their will as so many unecessary constraints that they will eventually throw off or overturn.


As unsavory as some may find Schmitt's political views, the above claim strikes close to home. American
democracy has a track record of ignoring or violating liberal constraints on the people's will, particularly
during times of war. Last November the bipartisan "Freedom Act," which would have revised the post 9-11 "
atriot Act" to prevent the NSA from collecting data about American Citizens' private phone calls, failed to
overcome a fillibuster in the U.S. Senate. Many Senate Republicans opposed the bill because they believe
that the NSA's massive data collection is necessary to combat ISIS.
(See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/nsa-phone-records.html?ref=us&;_r=0 for more information.)
The Patriot Act, which originally authorized such data collection, passed Congress in October 2001 (less than
2 months after 9-11) by massive majorities: the Senate vote was 98 to 1.


Is Schmitt right to see liberal constraints on power and democratic governance as inevitably contradictory? If
so, which political view (liberalism or democracy) do you see as more important and why? If not, how do you
believe they can be reconciled?

Since the early nineteenth century, democracy has prevailed as the most popular form
of governmental organization. It emerged as a coalition with the ability to reconcile a variety of
political aspirations. Democracy, as opposed to the then popular monarchial governments,
permits free reasoning among its subjects, and this irresistible idea expanded fiercely
throughout Europe. However, these eager, new citizens of democracy may have failed to
anticipate the mechanics of democratic rule, such as when the general will falls out of good
favor. In this particular situation, a citizen may become subject to the law that is against his
own will. Therefore, in striving to maintain a freer public sphere, the teachings of liberalism
will help subjects become more open-minded and accepting to opposing ideas thus generating
a more well-rounded general will and freer society.

Democracy is powerful in that it promotes and encompasses a governing system
capable of a great many ideals, so long as they are aligned with the opinion of the majority. A
democracy can be militarist or pacifist, absolutist or liberal, centralized or decentralized,
progressive or reactionary, and again different at different times without ceasing to be a
democracy. Nevertheless, the members of the outvoted minority are forced to realize that
their opinions stray from those of the majority. Therefore, they must accept their opinion as
being a mistake in addition to any laws established opposing ideals of the minority. Because
some citizens do not identify with the majority, it is important to understand how these
individuals may have arrived with defiant or strayed convictions. Schmitt writes, everything
depends on how the will of the people is formed.

The will of the people is formed mostly through the peoples education, Schmitt
states, that teaches citizens how to recognize and express their own will correctly. This
statement reveals the underlying dictatorship present in the process that more or less provides
the means for a democratic society. Therefore, our question becomes not how, but rather who

forms the will of the people. Schmitt provides examples of the undercover dictators of
democracy such as military and political force, propaganda, control of public opinion through
the press, party organizations, assemblies, popular education, and schools.

In striving to accomplish a more equal and liberated society that understands and
encompasses a population free of the shortcomings in a democracy, liberalism is key in
directing the general will in this direction. Aside from political affairs, a citizen that is
intellectually balanced well enough to encourage new ideas straying from general opinion
allows himself, his fellow citizens, and moreover, his country to become empowered by the
possibilities that may ensue. Notwithstanding, these straying ideas may prove detrimental or
meritorious, but how would our society grow and evolve if new ideas were never placed in
action?

Accordingly, the regulating force of democracy becomes much less needed as those
with deviating opinions are left to themselves so long as their actions do not hinder the liberties
of other citizens. The liberal citizen isnt quick to judge or to condemn but rather more apt to
live and let live. The reconciliation between democracy and liberalism is found through the will
of the people being educated and formed liberally so that a more perfect union might be
established where all are free to live and be as they please.