Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Larry, nothing in that direct quote actually says what you say it does. I offered a definition of fascism – and Vermeule didn’t say any part of it. Do you prefer a different definition? Ok, offer another and we can discuss it. Otherwise you’re just reading into the quote things that aren’t actually there.
What do I think he’s saying? I think he’s saying that common good, rather than liberty, is the end of government (not that government is the only institution concerned with it). I also think he’s saying that limiting abuse of power should not be the primary concern of a constitution, but that just use of legitimate power should be the aim of a constitutional system.
Dennis, let’s try it out. What definition of fascism do you want to test out first?
Primary purpose does not equal only purpose.
Given the above I say this with little hope of a productive exchange. But whatever, here goes.
Fascism is the totalitarianism of the nation. Believe it or not I’m giving Vermeule a certain amount of credit in that I define the term more narrowly than anyone I know and recognize that fascism is the least bad 20th century totalitarianism. Communism is the totalitarianism of the class and Nazism the totalitarianism of the race. Those were eliminationist ideologies. There is no particular group that has no room under fascism within the national family, an observation born out by the greater part of Mussolini’s tenure when he was functionally independent from Hitler. But neither is there any room for freedom.
By contrast I give Vermeule less credit than mere authoritarians like. Franco or most of our anti-Communist client regimes who discounted the individual but recognized that certain spheres like church and family were conceptually outside the state.
To convince me otherwise you’d have to show that Vermeule recognizes some limit to state power under the constitution. That Vermuele may not claim to want to exercise federal authority in certain ways doesn’t cut it; we all have our notions of how we’d behave prior to slipping on the ring of power. Such limits, in our system are found in the constitution and Vermeule’s piece offers not an interpretation but a means for abolishing it. To the extent that he bothers to discuss the document itself, which is minimal, he gives no indication that the president would ever have to consult the document before acting, only a reserve of post-hoc justifications which could be made by toady fascist jurisprudes.
I think you have the burden of proof backwards. You’re the one calling Vermeule a fascist (or an almost-fascist) – isn’t it on you to tell me what he said that makes you think so? Because Vermeule certainly doesn’t say that there’s no room for freedom, nor does he say that church and family should be subordinate to the state, and I’m not sure what you mean by “discount the individual”. So why do you attribute those things to him?
Also, isn’t it up to you to show why you think that Vermeule doesn’t recognize some limit to state power under the constitution? Where you claim Vermeule is silent on important questions, you apparently feel no compunction at filling in your own details. So far, all we have is your assertion still.
My offer was sincere, and I’m really not sure why you seem to think otherwise.
Because here it’s backwards. Vermeule calls himself illiberal. The burden is on you to show that he is in some capacity liberal. Vermeule, believes that the constitution is an impediment to “strong rule” to be overcome by reading his theories into its supposed grand generalities. Vermeule does not believe that the constitution or any written law by itself has intrinsic legitimacy. The burden falls on whoever would argue that there is some constitutional provision he respects.
The assumption that Vermuele is illiberal only where he writes and liberal wherever he is silent is gainsayed by everything he chooses to let us know about himself and his philosophy. So “Vermeule doesn’t say” is rank sophistry, and the reason for my skepticism about the value of this dialogue.
Well now you’re changing the terms. We were talking about how you think he’s a fascist or an almost-fascist. Illiberal is not a synonym for fascist, especially not as Vermeule goes on to describe what he means by it.
I think that’s wrong. I think Vermeule thinks that originalism is an impediment to common good. I think Vermeule is wrong about that, for the reasons I’ve already given earlier in the thread, but Vermeule is not anti-constitution. Indeed, the whole point of his piece is a new way for our existing judiciary in our existing constitution to approach decisions and constitutional interpretation.
Doesn’t that assumption of the existence of a constitution and a judiciary (as opposed to a dictator) to administer disputes in itself assume limitations on power?
I don’t recall reading that in the Vermeule piece or any of the items he linked to. I’m not really sure what you even mean by that. However, he did lay out some principles of legitimate government. Do you agree or disagree with any of those?
He’s talking about how the judiciary should approach decison making. Doesn’t that assume a constitutional framework within which to make decisions?
I don’t assume anything about Vermeule, but “Vermeule doesn’t say” is hardly sophistry. If Vermeule doesn’t say “it”, then by what standard do you ascribe these things to him? How do you know if not by his words?
No I’m not. I’m responding to your unfounded assumption that Vermeule is owed a presumption of liberality.
I concede that Vermuele is concerned with the nation which for a totalitarian means fascism. Do you want to argue that he’s a communist or a nazi?
That Vermeule believes in a total state is made clear by his intent to read any substantive limitations on state power out of the constitution. To argue that Vermuele doesn’t name check every clause he wants to eviscerate is either childishly pedantic or in bad faith.
Then your recollection is faulty.
The presence of something called a judiciary is meaningful when it can apply substantive restraints on the other branches, not when it provides a guaranteed rubber stamp
Dude! That wasn’t my assumption – I’m not assuming anything. I specifically asked you about why you thought this was fascist. You are changing the terms.
What?!? Ok, I think I’m done. Now you know Vermeule’s intent? I prefer looking at his actual words, but apparently that’s just sophistry.
By the process of applying the general to the specific. Vermeule does not have to say “down with the tonnage clause,” for me to know that he would recognize no restraint on state power through that clause, when his MO is doing away with constitutional restraints on state power.
That’s very possible. Where can I find it then?
Oh, and I suppose you just know that he assumes the judiciary would only be a guaranteed rubber stamp.
Makes sense then that he would write an entire essay about the approach that judiciary should use to do their rubber stamping.
As much as I hate myself for giving in to the “the person I’m arguing with is now my research assistant” school of political debate, here:
“More important still, thinking that the common good and its corollary principles have to be grounded in specific texts is a mistake; they can be grounded in the general structure of the constitutional order and in the nature and purposes of government. The Supreme Court, like Congress and the presidency, has often drawn upon broad structural and natural-law principles to determine the just authority of the state. “Police power,” which, despite its misleading name, refers to the general power of state governments to protect health, safety, order, and public morality, is nowhere mentioned in the written Constitution. America’s real, “efficient” Constitution is largely unwritten or uncodified, as is true of constitutions everywhere.”
Well you might be right. You certainly seem to have your finger on the pulse of an authoritarian mindset. That is, make up whatever you want about your target. It’s obvious. It’s his MO. So you say. Matters not what Vermeule actually says.
Carl Schmitt call your office.
This doesn’t say what you said it says. This says nothing about Vermeule’s belief or unbelief in the idea that the constitution or any written law by itself has intrinsic legitimacy.
What matters not is what Vermuele hasn’t said but that his defenders decide to infer from his inauspicious silences.
Who’s Carl Schmitt? Does he just know things about people too regardless of what those people actually say?
A constitutional theory not grounded in “specific texts” is not a constitutional theory, because it denies the legitimacy of those documents to effect substantive legal restraints. Or did Vermeule not “say” that?
I think I’m picking up on your affinity for Vermuele, you interpret his article the way he would interpret the constitution. It doesn’t “say” that you can’t enact a moralistic police state with a monarchical president. Run a text search and those words are nowhere to be found. Sure it says things that are wholly and utterly incompatible with such a project but it would be unfair to the constitution to apply its principles to situations it didn’t foresee to list in itemized detail.
Huh? You’re so right. Silence is more damning than words even. How dare he not say the words you just know he thinks but refuses to arm you with!
This is getting convoluted even for an authoritarian.
You should take this up with Vermuele. If you can’t read his piece get him to highlight the parts of the constitution for you, that he thinks should actually mean anything. You’ll be disappointed.
You’re changing terms again. This is not the same as saying that the constitution or any written law by itself has no intrinsic legitimacy.
I agree that Vermeule’s constitutional theory is a bit of a mess, but no he didn’t say that the constitution does not have the legitimacy to effect substantive legal constraints, whatever that actually means.
You can put it in scare quotes all you want, but your insistence that his actual words don’t matter says way more about you than it does about me or Vermeule.