I don't disapprove of the Total State - but I wouldn't want to live in one. That doesn't mean that I don't recognise that certain blessings flow from a unitary government empowered by a single vision, just that I don't want to pay the price of those blessings in the coin of my liberties.

The author who most clearly and cogently discusses the tension between the Idea and the individual is Carl Schmidt, author of 'The Challenge of the Exception'. He was Hitler's 'Crown Jurist' and chief legal ideologue - but that doesn't mean he wasn't right. Divested of the language of blood, race and nation, of the language of Nazism, his argument is simply this - that in extraordinary circumstances a decision must be made, and that decision must be made by one person legally empowered to use extraordinary means to meet extraordinary circumstances.

Where the Idea is valued above the dissenting individual; where the right to resist extraordinary means employed to meet extraordinary circumstances is not acknowledged - or where it is acknowledged but disregarded, we can say that a totalizing Idea is deployed against difference. This may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view. As I've said, I'm in sympathy with the idea that a decision is best enunciated by one voice, and the idea that that voice should derive from some unifying principle that is natural to the people who form the political constituents of the voice that enunciates the Ideal. And to that degree I'm in sympathy with the nature of the Nazi State which showed that even in the age of Modernity, very ancient social themes are still relevant.

What the Nazis did was to bring together organic unity and bureaucratic organization and military discipline, all unified by the Idea of Blood, of Race. In consequence they were able to take on the world and almost win.

The fact that they could do so remains a demonstration of the power of the Total Idea, and continues to be a challenge to the prevailing notion that democracy is the only viable form of political organization. The success of Nazism as a socio-political organizational form ought to make us consider to what degree our current political verities are truths only to the extent that they deny the validity of other perspectives. And we ought to do so because by so doing we gain an intellectual and political flexibility that can only be an advantage in the struggle against the monolithic and inflexible mass of the majority of thought regarding political and/or spiritual Jihad.

To: Dan Greene

Hello. Welcome to the blog.

It's also advancing because the congress has put re-election in front of making real stands against [...] abuse of that power. [...] Even Pelosi doesn't appear to have the political capital to force the issue to a head [...] she's looking to conserve political capital even though the war in Iraq is the single biggest issue facing the country when the country decides to face it

All any politician of any stamp or party is ultimately concerned about is her (in this case) or his political survival. The natural position of any politician in a democracy is studied ambiguity - until he or she can decide definitively which way political advantage lies. Had Bush's Little Adventure in Iraq proven to be a success, or even less of a failure, then politicians on all sides would be doing their best to claim a share of the political spoils. As it is, there's a tiny chance that something may be salvaged from this ridiculous affair - so politicians hedge their bets and wait for some decisive indicator that either all is lost, or that there is still some advantage to be gained.

The most foolish thing in the world, in relation to politics, is to imagine that any politician is in the game for anything other than his or her interest. If ever politics was informed by an ideal of public service, that time is long since gone.

But do you think that the Federal government of the United States can actually go so far as to be truly one of a totalitarian regime?

I think that outcome is a lot less likely here than it is elsewhere. You have the Constitution. You have a heavily armed population conscious of its Rights under that Constitution and not averse to using force to defend it. And, importantly, you have a military that is not loyal to some person or party but to the Ideal of America, to a Republic governed by Law and Office. All of which are powerful disincentives to the extension of the power of the Executive across the whole of the State and into the body politic. But is it possible for America to move in that direction and ultimately become something she has never been before? Yes, it's possible. Just not likely.

Were we not as responsible, for making good election choices, as those chosen were to make wise decisions and the right decision more often the the wrong ones?

I agree with you. Every citizen of a Republic bears a share in responsibility for the actions of that Republic because, as a citizen, he has a share in authorizing those acts - even if that share is as minimal as merely recognizing the Authoirity of the Republic to act at all as legitimate. In a Republic having the form of a democracy that authorization and responsibility is even clearer - because a decision to vote is a decision to participate, and in a majoritarian democracy all participation is also legitimation.

Even a decision not to vote does not excuse a citizen of either his authorization or his responsibility - because the non-voter continues to reside in the Republic, continues to accept its benefits, obey its laws, and does nothing other than not voting to disassociate himself from the Republic. In other words, he remains a citizen, and as a citizen he expresses the ligitimacy of the Republic as a whole, no matter how he may dissapprove of certain actions of the Republic.

But do you think that the Federal government of the United States can actually go so far as to be truly one of a totalitarian regime?

I was looking for more of a yes or no there.

Thats interesting I see us there already in many ways, with the way the "real media" hypes news that is junk. Also how a lot of our products don't have a sustainable and renewable life cycle. We truly are expected to continue to buy things, and create our own need with the help of "marketing need" i.e. a trendy word for value. If we don't the whole system collapses so it is our interest to spend rather then save, utilize rather then acquire. Not sure how it all figures into government power though.

"since it reaches into every part of our lives and goes completely unquestioned."

It reaches in if you allow it, if you welcome it, and if you have no defense against it. I find that I am able to evade marketing when I recognize it. But the trick is to recognize it.

I think for totalitarianism to work you have to have a willing populace with a set of conditions. In North Korea for example you have not only the unwavering support of the populace but the expectation that resistance to the norm will lead to death. But that won't always be that way. People rebel for freedom and organize against their leadership when they find that it leads them astray.

I think our government has gotten themselves into a bind with the Iraq war and we have stepped into the closest line with the totalitarian way of ruling with President Bush and the pre-war acceleration to invasion, as we have ever been to a dictatorship. Yet it was the choice of the people, not screaming for a stop of that line of thinking, a choice of the media in general to not question that before troops boots' stepped into the border of Iraq.

I think before the war even with the whole of the evidence shaky and the knowledge now that the evidence had been more or less hand picked to support the conclusions that Iraq was a real danger, that we gave into that desire to remove that danger. That availability to succumb to the general consensus of the group is the dangerous exploitation of tyrants.

It worked great for Hitler. It works today still for Castro and for North Korea. I don't think it would work in the United States in government though.