9 Grimshaw Trump

CONTINENTAL THOUGHT & THEORY: A JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM
Special Issue: The Problem of Trump: responses from radical theology & philosophy
Volume 3 | 1: Special Issue: The Problem of Trump

132-162 | ISSN: 2463-333X
The legacy of Weimar ?:

Trump as Schmittean sovereign
& Taubesean katechon
Mike Grimshaw
The Republican strategist Rick Wilson, a vocal opponent of Trump, concluded
his indictment of Trump and Trumpism by recognizing that there are wider, long
term effects even if Trump only survives one term of office. He observes:
Trump is a problem we’ll be a long-time in solving. The damage to our

institutions, our hopes, and our reputation in the world won’t be undone
overnight or with a few sweet words. 1
This essay seeks to use a particular, non-American perspective and history to

make sense of what we can call the problem of Trump. There is an ever-expanding
accumulation of books, articles, podcasts and documentaries that engage with what
can be termed the problem of Trump (the man, the movement, the idea) as a
political, social and cultural problem. This chapter (and the wider edited project)
does something different, by deliberately engaging with the problem of Trump from
the perspectives of radical theology and philosophy. To do so situates Trump as first
and foremost both a problem of thinking and a problem for thinking. If the first
problem is interrogating what thinking gave rise to Trump, then the second problem
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 132
is how to think about Trump. So, our question – and problem – is how might we
think Trump, think the rise and momentum of Trump, think what Trump symbolizes
and expresses drawing on the insights and possibilities offered from radical
theological and philosophical thought?
Given the alignment of Trump with conservative theological and philosophical
forces and movements, it is both timely and important that radical theological and
philosophical voices combine to offer a counter-narrative. The radical theology
position that drives this engagement with – and critique of – Trump as a problem is
aligned with one of central statements made by Robbins and Crockett regarding the
role of theology in the work of Charles Winquist: “Theology was a discourse
formulation that functioned to fissure other discourses by pushing them to their limits
and interrogating them as to their sense and practicality” Over the years, I have often
2
returned to this and the following points made in response to Winquist because to
my mind they speak to the continuing relevance of what I term ‘the necessary
problem’ of theology in modernity. What do I mean by this? How can a problem be
termed ‘necessary’? My answer is that theology, as what I term ‘the claim of an
alternative’, is a central challenge to the self-reflexivity of modernity. Therefore
theology, and radical theology in particular, is a problem that is ‘necessary’ because,
as a critical endeavor, theology challenges the closed systems of modernity and the
enlightenment by demanding a type of critical thinking that exists as an
“argumentative discourse” . To this end, Helmet Peukert declares that both
3
Enlightenment and theology are unfinished projects within the larger unfinished
project of Modernity in that both are continually to having to self-reflexively prove
themselves anew as critical endeavours. This is one reason why this discussion of
4
the problem of Trump refers to a central, decisive moment of early 20 century th
modernity, for that project is unfinished. But the project has not gone in the direction
that many may have wished or wanted it to. The problem of Trump is therefore also
a problem of – and for – the unfinished project of Modernity.
To relocate this back to the challenge of Winquist’s thought: theology in its
critique of existence itself, operating as what Robbins and Crockett name as “reason
in search of itself’’ , acts as the self-critical reflexion on both society and religion,
5
because theology operates across disciplinary boundaries. Trump as a problem is

therefore, in this line of arguing, a problem that requires the fissuring of theology to
enable us to make sense of Trump – and make sense of the discourse of Trump
(both for and against him). To take this further to where my fissuring of Trump
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 133
begins, we must also traverse via what Carl Raschke, like Robbins and Crockett
engaging with the legacy of Winquist, in tracing a lineage back to Kant, argues: “To
think intensely what remains concealed in the depths of thought is to think
theologically”, and yet, because of the Enlightenment, such theological thinking has
become “a very difficult, if not impossible, peculiar labor” 6
The challenge occasioned by this is the fissuring of secular modernity itself

whereby theology is now “a thought that has learned to think what is unthought
within the thought of itself” . The problem of Trump is therefore a task that can and
7
perhaps should be approached via theology because theology provides us with the
hermeneutic tools to, in this case, think what is unthought in the thought of Trump –
that is, what is as yet unthought in how we think about Trump.
In this essay, radical theology is used to critique Trump and all he and his
supporters claim to stand for and endorse. Likewise, philosophical critiques are
offered that go beyond the standard, as yet ineffective responses. I use the term
‘ineffective’ intentionally, because in the main, philosophical critiques of Trump have
only served to confirm the status-quo views of those who oppose Trump. What has,
to my mind, been more interesting are those who offer a philosophically-based
support for Trump such as that by Victor Davis Hanson which is engaged with later
on in this discussion. For such conservative philosophical support often makes a far
better case of putting Trump within a wider socio-cultural and political context than
most mainstream anti-Trump philosophy. Similarly, most theological opposition to
Trump could be said to fail to really understand what gave rise to the problem of
Trump, or why so many religious folk support Trump to some degree. This is not to
deny the anti-Trump religious centre and left, but rather to say most of it does not dig
deep enough or cast its critical net wide enough.
It may be a bold claim, but radical theology and philosophy ‘s position as
outside the mainstream means they are uniquely positioned to engage with such a
big problem as Trump. Not only because outsider positions can provide a different
perspective of Trump the political outsider (that is, the one who comes as disruptor
to the establishment and orthodoxy) but also because, as ways of thinking, radical
theology and philosophy are focused on fissuring the big issues of meaning, value,
power and claims of – and against – Truth. This is why Trump is not only an
American problem, Trump is a global problem: the signal of a shift in politics and
society that must be resisted not only by bodies but perhaps, most importantly, by
minds. Therefore, to resist Trump, we must be able to re-think, to critique, to
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 134
deconstruct Trump: to provide iconoclastic thought against Trump the man, the
movement, the problem. Part of this also means reading and interpreting the works
of those who support, to greater or lesser degrees both Trump and the wider
programme and shift that can be called Trumpism.
To do this, I draw upon what can be termed Taubesan hermeneutics; that is,
the type of hermeneutics undertaken by Jacob Taubes (1923-1987), the Jewish
scholar, Professor of Hermeneutics at the Free university of Berlin, whose thought
and also correspondence with the legal and political theorist Carl Schmitt enables, I
claim, a way to re-think Trump.
Tabuesan hermeneutics was described as drawing “from authors such as
Nietzsche, Freud, Benjamin and above all Carl Schmitt. The rule of thumb is this
hermeneutics reads:
“Against whom is this text written?” or “what key sentence was this text written
to conceal?” It is the matter of a hermeneutics on the trail of the implicit and
the marginal because it assumes that that which is disguised governs a text
more than that which is articulated. It further assumes that the trace of a
decisive truth proceeds diagonally toward an encoded communication. 8
One way to proceed is to read the books written about Trump and Trumpism –
from all sides of the problem – to attempt to identify that trace of a decisive truth, that
which is disguised or to identify what is that key sentence. But in order to do so
requires a wider frame of hermeneutics, a wider underlying argument to read from
and to. In this case I want to consider Trump and Trumpism as having some
parallels to the issues of the Weimar Republic that resulted in a reactionary turn
signaling the rise of authoritarianism and fascism. It is here that the notions of
sovereign and katechon as arise in the letters to Carl Schmitt by Taubes provide a
means of critique and a way to rethink Trump. But before we go to Weimar, we also
need to go back before Weimar, to that time of turmoil at the end of the Great War
when a new form of modernity and the politics of modernity were arising.
Count Harry Kessler, aesthete, diplomat and diarist left an intriguing record of
the issues facing Germany in the early 20th century, a record of a time of both
revolution and counter-revolution as expressed in his observation of the artist George
Groz: “He is reactionary and revolutionary in one, a symbol of the times.” I want to 9
raise the possibility that Trump and Trumpism are, a century later, a contemporary
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 135
symbol of the times, both revolutionary and reactionary in one and that perhaps the
rise and election of Trump is paralleled in ethos if not in politics also by what Kessler
recorded the Italian socialist Modigiliani commenting in 1922 with the rise of Italian
fascism; Italy was experiencing counter-revolution before revolution.” This sense of 10
the twinning of counter-revolution or revolution is central to understanding what has

happened with the rise of Trump, because Trump and Trumpism plays on both
elements of revolution and counter-revolution.
Here the work of Furio Jesi in his book Spartakus, the symbolism of Revolt,
provides our first means to undertake Taubesan hermeneutics. I want to read this
book, a critique and analysis of the 1918 Spartakus League revolt in Germany, as
providing those disguised traces and truths that we can apply as fissuring to Trump
and Trumpism. Jesi was a historian, writer and philosopher who had a special
interest in the role of myth in modern times. Important for our discussion is the
distinction Jesi made between a revolt and a revolution. As Andrea Cavalleti
observes of Jesi’s distinctions, a revolution is whereby “a long-term strategy is entirely
immersed in the advance of history”, whereas a revolt is “a sudden insurrectionary
explosion [and] well and truly a ‘suspension’ of historical time.” This is the first 11
problem of Trump: is Trump and Trumpism a revolution or a revolt? One way to

think about this is that for Jesi, normal time is restored after a revolt and this raises 12
the question of will normal time be restored after Trump – and what indeed is normal
time? Here we can note Jared Yates Sexton’s observation that from the moment that
Trump descended on the escalator in Trump tower, “like a deity deigning mortals
worthy of an audience” to announce his decision to run for president, “he had
ushered the country into what will forever be known as the Post-Trump era.” 13
I want to argue that Trump and Trumpism quickly became a revolt during the
Republican primaries, a revolt that continued when he secured the Republican
nomination. I argue this in light of how Jesi explains the revolt:
On the occasion of the revolt, their most responsible members are confronted
with extremely serious problems and contradictions in the face of which every
choice has decisive consequences for the future life of the party…And it may
turn out, that in the hour of the revolt, those in charge of the party…must
choose to favour the revolt they did not want, all the while energetically
criticizing it. 14
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 136
While it is easy, perhaps too easy, to make a direct correlation between this
and the revolt within the Republican party that gave rise to Trump, I would argue that
the Jesian categories of revolt and revolt, on the cusp of the Weimar Republic,
enable us to rethink the problem of Trump, especially when we then extend the
discussion into the possibilities raised by Carl Schmitt and Jacob Taubes.
So to contextualize; regarding the question of why turn to Germany, to Weimar
Germany to understand the problem of Trump? The answer is that which Jesi puts
forward to understand modernity: “The German situation seems to us the most
revealing, the most schematic and, at the same time, the most rich in the elements
from which can draw conclusions of a general character.” Or, as the editors of the
15
incredibly substantial Weimar Republic Source Book articulated:
a laboratory for modernity, the Weimar period offered a panoply of political,

economic, social and cultural models…The result was a frantic kaleidoscopic
shuffling of the fragments of a nascent modernity and the remnants of a
persistent past . 16
This is why Weimar is still central, a century on; for to be modern is still to live
in the wake of Weimar. To approach this from another angle, as Andrew Turner
raised in his discussion of Schmitt and Weimar in Telos (2011) , we need to
remember “one of the hidden sources feeding the Schmitt problem – the question of
responsibility for the demise of the Weimar republic”. To understand this via a
17
Taubesan hermeneutics, we could say that today: we need to remember one of the
hidden sources feeding the Trump problem – and that is “the question of
responsibility”. Whether or not it is to be responsibility for the demise of the American
republic is yet open to debate, but what I want to argue is that there are parallels that
can be drawn, including as we will turn later, to using tropes raised by Schmitt and
Taubes.
First however, let us undertake a detour via the raising of the possibility of what
is termed, “the Weimar moment”; that is, the moment of the time when the Weimar
republic failed. This time, this moment, this event of failure resonates across time and
space, as Rudy Koshar notes, “because of the tremendous political and moral costs
entailed by the failure.” The result of this failure means, even in the 21 century, the
18 st
issue of ‘the Weimar moment’ continues to re-emerge “well beyond the point of its
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 137
inception.” In the 21 century the Weimar moment is and can be drawn upon
19 st
because as Jeffrey Bernstein observed,
Weimar teaches us about the growing dissatisfaction with liberal, political

thought, the ensuing (largely, but not exclusively, Protestant) theological-
political critiques, and the sense of urgency preceding a possible breakdown
of republican forms of government. 20
Another analogy that can be discerned between Weimar and the current day
is that both actual and discursive violence was undertaken “by the Nazis to create
an atmosphere of civil war” and while there is at the moment only a discursive civil
war occasioned by Trumpism, what is most analogous to Trump and Trumpism is
how the Nazis, having created and sustained such a situation “offered themselves as
both embattled survivors and saviors.’ This links to another close analogy of the
21
current times, especially in America, but also in many modern western states, with
Weimar; that is, the turn to populist and fascist politics by a middle class which was
“scarred, economically and psychologically’’ and this meant “that Weimar did not
22
collapse as much as it was toppled by political groups that hated it for its
achievements.” 23
Of course, in undertaking a hermeneutical approach, analogies can be read

into being; but also consider this observation in regard to Trumpism and in particular
the ‘direct-contact’ tweeting of Trump with his strident, divisive rhetoric. The success
of the Nazis in overthrowing Weimar was in part because of their willingness to rely
on “ ‘mood-directed’ propaganda” that created and drove what has been termed “a
fascism of ‘feeling’ that the didactic traditions and responses of the opposition could
not usefully respond against.” In considering this, we become aware that Jesi’s
24
discussion on political propaganda during a revolt speaks to the Trumpian moment

as well, for “every political attitude that aims to employ propagandistic schemas
implies a strategy that uses a portion of historical time to make it coincide with the
immobile time of myth”. The problem of Trump is how do we position Trump and
25
Trumpism within this? On the one hand, Trump as revolution is part of historical time
while Trump as revolt is the interruption into historical time of myth. However, if we
think of Trump and Trumpism as revolt that became revolution on his election, then
we can perhaps position the central slogan and appeal of “Make America Great
Again” as a contemporary expression of what Jesi describes as “a strategic
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 138
crystallization of the historical present so as to evoke the epiphany of mythical

time.” 26
To understand this, we can engage with Jesi’s categories of revolt and

revolution. Both these actions aim to seize power, but as noted, the revolution does
so within historical time while the revolt does not have a long-term strategy. Trump’s
opponents understandably wish to view Trump and Trumpism as a revolt, after
which historical time is restored; on the other hand, revolution is undertaken by those
who are conscious of wanting to alter in historical time a political, social,

economic situation and who develop their own tactical and strategic plans by
constantly considering the relation between cause and effect in historical
time. 27
Yet as always when thinking about Trump and Trumpism, the delineations are
not perhaps so clear; this gives rise to the question, was Trump and Trumpism a
revolt that, with Steve Bannon in the Whitehouse became a revolution; and yet that,
following Bannon’s departure, has become a revolt again? Or, do we have the
continuation of the Trumpian revolution that is still viewed as only as revolt by
Trump’s opponents? Here Jesi offers a way forward because, in his schema, the
revolt is the suspension of historical time and therefore if you take part in a revolt you
do not know nor can you predict the consequences. For the revolt is a collective
battle that suspends historical time and societal space wherein individual battles
become collective ones. A revolution can however emerge from a revolt, via the
incorporation of a new version of historical time and so the revolt becomes
permanent due to the revolution. In this schema the inauguration of Trump as
president saw the revolt become a revolution because there was the emergence of a
new historical time, the time of Trump and Trumpism. Or to consider it another way,
after the revolt, says Jesi, each individual goes back to a society as it was before.
To apply Taubesan hermeneutics, let us consider again, in light of Trump
becoming the Republican nominee, that statement by Jesi on the revolt. To reiterate,
Jesi’ s claim is that:
On the occasion of the revolt, their most responsible members are confronted
with extremely serious problems and contradictions, in the face of which every
choice has decisive consequences for the future life of the party…And it may
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 139
turn out, that in the hour of the revolt, those in charge of the party…must
choose to favour the revolt they did not want, all the while energetically
criticizing it. 28
While Jesi approaches the question of revolt and revolution from within
Marxist terms and framework, that is, as a revolt against capitalist society and the
revolution as the overthrow of capitalism, I believe we can and must – as in the
context of Weimar – apply Jesi’s terms in a different, amended fashion. So, we must
talk of counter-revolt and counter-revolution as that which occurs to advance
capitalism. In this Trumpism is first a counter-revolt and then a counter-revolution
against capitalism as globalization, against the effects of neo-liberalism; that is as a
counter-revolt and then a counter-revolution in favour of nationalist, populist
capitalism. Therefore, Trumpism was a revolt and is then a revolution that occurs
from within capitalism and not against it.
It is here that we can bring in the discussion of Carl Schmitt and Jacob Taubes
as recorded in To Carl Schmitt because to undertake the next stage of this
hermeneutical discussion we need to introduce the categories of the sovereign, the
katechon and the anti-Christ that arise from Schmitt and Taubes. In Schmitt’s
political theology, the sovereign is the one who makes the exception; while in the
letters to Schmitt of Taubes, arises, via Taubes, the notion of the katechon, the
restrainer of the anti-Christ and of the apocalypse that follows. To engage with these
concepts, I believe we must read any discussion of Trump and Trumpism through
what has almost become the Schmittean cliché from Political Theology (1922) that
“all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological
concepts”. If this is this case, then thinking of Trump and Trumpism, but in
29
reference to Weimar, we can raise the question that do we not find ourselves within
a series of decisions such as those in Weimar grappled with, seeking “to unravel the
meaning of modernity and to push it in new directions, some emancipatory and
joyous, others frightfully authoritarian, murderous and racist”? This unravelling and 30
pushing in new directions required decisions to be made and, most importantly for
our discussion, decisions as to what would or could be ‘the exception’? It was in this
context that Schmitt perceived that ‘the decisive question’ was “who decides?” 31
Following on from this, is decision making, that is decision making that makes an
exception to the norm in not ratifying the expected decision, an act of sovereignty?
As I have argued elsewhere , Political Theology, in arising from Schmitt, as debated
32
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 140
by Schmitt and Taubes, meeting in the concept of friend-enemy, but also more so as
the developing 20 century concept and critique, exists as a reminder of the
th
apocalyptic in what is taken to be a secular world of the triumph of liberal

democracy. Is in fact apocalyptic counter-revolution the real outside to liberal
democracy and if so, can we think of Trumpism in such a fashion? In such a context
the sovereign as the one who makes the exception, as the one who makes the
decision that is the exception, takes on a new immediacy; likewise, the notion of the
katechon as the restrainer of that viewed as anti-Christ; that is, viewed as the
disrupter, the counter-authority, the challenge, the impure.
In Schmitt’s political theology, central to his notion of democracy was
heterogeneity and here we now first turn to Schmitt because, writing from within
Weimar, he states liberalism is opposed to democracy – but his democracy, built on
a concept of the sovereign-decision, is actually, we argue, totalitarian in ethos:
The belief in parliamentarianism, in government by discussion, belongs to the

intellectual world of liberalism. It does not belong to democracy…Every actual
democracy rest on the principle, that not only are equals equals but unequals
will not be treated equally. Democracy requires therefore first homogeneity
and second – if the need arises – elimination or eradication of heterogeneity. 33
A concern thus arises: is sovereignty – even sovereignty in the name of

democracy – opposed to impurity? The echoes here of building a wall to keep out
the impure, of the challenge to those viewed or declared ‘un-American’ is all too
clear. And so, is a Schmittean democracy of the sovereign-decision (and its
contemporary populist-decision counterparts) always potentially totalitarian in both
ethos and action? It would seem so if, as Schmitt continues, that a “democracy
demonstrates its political power by knowing how to refuse and keep at bay
something foreign and unequal that threatens its homogeneity.” Impurity, of people, 34
things or ideas, is therefore positioned as the constant threat to democracy and

democracy is counter-positioned as the katechon of impurity – at least in a
Schmittean frame of sovereign-decision. Our problem is that, as Schmitt argues
“because inequality always belongs to equality” therefore a democracy “can exclude
one part of those governed without ceasing to be a democracy” and this is an 35
expression of the sovereign-decision: an exception made within democracy that

does not negate democracy. To understand this, we need to recognize that for
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 141
Schmitt it is liberalism that posits the equality of all persons as persons while
democracy, which Schmitt argues for, is not to be confused with liberalism. We must
remember this distinction when considering the contemporary moment of Trump
and Trumpism and wider, other forms of political nationalism that situate themselves,
in the name of democracy, against liberalism – or, as it is often dismissed,
progressivism.
It is chaos that demands, for Schmitt, the necessity of the sovereign-decision;
and so, it is the chaos of liberalism, the chaos of liberal modernity that claims to be
democratic but is really only chaotic, that requires the necessity of the sovereign-
decision. This means, for Schmitt, that the role of the sovereign is ultimately the one
who, in the face of chaos, makes the decisive decision, the decision of the exception,
the decision to keep order. If liberal modernity is chaos, if liberal democracy (an
oxymoron in Schmitt’s view of democracy) is chaos, then the only choice for the
sovereign is counterrevolution; for revolution against liberal modernity can only be
the further chaos of communism.
We also need to remember that what brought Taubes into agreement with
Schmitt was Schmitt’s referencing in Political Theology of Hobbes’ statement in
Leviathan that ‘the law is made by authority, not by truth’. It was Taubes’
concentration on history that turned him against liberalism because he could not
agree with liberalism’s belief in the progressive nature of a universal human subject.
Rather, history is history of apocalypse, and the sovereign-decision is for counter-
revolution that holds liberal chaos and belief at bay. As Taubes notes, “It was clear to
me right from the start that Carl Schmitt’s slim but provocative treatise Political
Theology was a general onslaught on liberal modernity – whether as a way of life or
as a form of knowledge…” , for common to both Taubes and Schmitt “is the
36
experience of time and history as a delimited respite, as a term or even a last

respite.” As noted, the sovereign-decision that arises, for both Taubes and Schmitt,
37
is the necessity of the decision for the katechon; that is, the decision for the restrainer
who holds back apocalypse. For Taubes and Schmitt, time and history are
apocalyptic and it is the sovereign-decision for the katechon that is the counter-
revolutionary necessity; a decision and view of time and history that both Taubes and
Schmitt view as located in “a Christian experience of history.” 38
Therefore, to rethink Trump and Trumpism in light of Weimar is also to

remember the katechon is to hold back the Antichrist – and for Taubes and Schmitt
the Antichrist today is liberal modernity precisely because it is impure and chaotic.
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 142
And to complicate things further, it is telling that Schmitt, writing to Armin Mohler in
1958, states: “Taubes is right: today everything is theology, with the exception of
what the theologians talk about…” – and so sovereignty remains a theological
39
decision that theologians do not talk about. This is why I also want to go back to
Taube’s doctoral thesis from 1947, that was published as Occidental Eschatology
(2009).
In 1987, as noted in the Introduction to his Occidental Eschatology, Taubes
declared “ there is no eternal return, time does not enable nonchalance ; rather it is
distress.” The time of Trump is such a time of distress and this enables us to
40
understand where we find ourselves, for Trump time is not the expression of a
cyclical concept and so Trump is not the return of or to the past, or of or to a past
movement such a fascism; rather Trump time is the experience of the distress of the
now. We can consider this in the light of the view of Steve Bannon on Trump as
noted by Vicky Ward in her critique of Jared Kushner:
Bannon had believed and still believes – that Trump is a transformational

historical figure, a disrupter, and agent of change. the man might be
temperamental and deeply flawed, but his ability to connect to the forgotten
man, to articulate the raw anger among the working class is extraordinary. 41
Or as Jared Yates Sexton observes in The people are going to rise up like the
waters upon your shore, his account of the 2016 election:
Trump’s message of unbridled wrath was what they had been looking for.
Finally, there was a person pissed-off enough to get onstage and simply
scream at the system the way any of them would had they been given the
opportunity. 42
Sexton also puts this in the wider context of what he terms ‘the miscalculation’
of the Clinton campaign:
Voters in 2016 weren’t looking for a friend, and they most certainly weren’t in
the market for a new product,
They wanted representatives decrying inequality.
They wanted angry candidates warring against culture as a whole.
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 143
What they wanted, and what they would get, was rage. 43
To put this in the wider rise of populism and the troubles of the West, as
dissected by the Singaporean political scientist Kishore Mahbubanai in his
provocatively entitled warning, Has the West lost it?, Trump, Brexit and other
western populist events are signs that:
the working-class populations could feel directly what their elites couldn’t.
Their lives were being disrupted by fundamental changes taking place in the
world order, and their leaders had done nothing to explain to them what was
happening nor to mitigate the damages. 44
It is this time of crisis, a time of crisis, disruption and rage that echoes Weimar,
that the sovereign who makes the exception and the katechon who holds back the
chaos come centre stage; and yet, conversely, for the liberals, for the elites, for the
progressives, Trump is not sovereign, he is not katechon. Rather, for liberals, elites
and progressives Trump, in political theology terms, is anti-Christ, the symbol of the
chaos they fear and oppose; and yet there is no liberal nor progressive sovereign, no
liberal, no progressive katechon. This is why we find ourselves in apocalyptic time, in
the time of the political theology eschaton, a time that has continued since the 2016
election. Brett Easton Ellis, who notes he had made Trump a hero of Patrick Bateman
in American Psycho, observed that on both sides “you were either virtue voting for
one candidate or voting for the other and therefore evil.” This is therefore a time of
45
Manichean dualism and in such a time comes the call for the katechon, the
restrainer of evil and chaos; the trouble being only one side has this and that is
Trump. And yet, as Easton Ellis comments, this is a time of war, a time of conflict: “But
in the age of Trump there seemed to be no escape, no peace, for anybody”, resulting
in “this apocalyptic narrative about the electorate and the new president.” 46
The classicist and military historian, Victor Davis Hanson, in The Case for
Trump, argued “Trump himself played an ancient role of the crude, would-be savior
who scares even those who invite him in to solve intractable problems that their own
elite leadership could not” ; and we could say, the tragic echoes of Weimar, not
47
noted here by Hanson, are glaringly apparent. The problem Trump identified, the
rage Trump symbolized, was an argument, Hanon states, “that what was wrong was
not America’s morality, but its spirit.” So what was needed was a katechon, a
48
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 144
sovereign, who would disrupt and restore; a counter-revolutionary sovereign, whose

central sovereign moment is succinctly delineated by Hanson: “Trumpism, then, was
the idea that there were no longer taboo subjects. Everything was open for
negotiation; nothing was sacred.” 49
We can say that in this, Trumpism secularized politics – that is, his politics took
liberal political theology out of politics via Schmittean political theology; or to put it
another way, Trumpism (instinctively but unwittingly) restored political theology to
politics. In this context, the sovereign decision is the decision concerning what or
who to sacralize and what and who to profane. Or as the anti-Trump Republican Rick
Wilson commented: “Trump has opened up entirely new theological avenues.” 50
Here we find our way back to Taubes and his comments in his essay
“Theology and Political Theory” that “as there is no theology without political
implications, there is no political theory without theological presuppositions.” If 51
Schmitt seeks the katechon who holds back the chaos and supports the sovereign
decision that positions democracy against liberalism, then Taubes sees this within a
wider frame of apocalypse. Taubes situates the basis of apocalypticism in the one
he terms ‘the stranger’ who calls to those exiled : “All who exiled from the here and
52
now of the world and despise the powers of “this” world, receive his call with joy.” In 53
this, as David Ratmoko comments, “Taubes’ study shows apocalypticism to be a

revolutionary force in western history, springing from situations of exile.” If we read 54
this via our discussion of Jesi, then Trumpism can be rethought as the apocalyptic
revolution of those who felt exiled in their own land. Therefore, we conclude that, via
a substantial detour via Weimar, Jesi, political theology and Jacob Taubes, that
Trump is a type of apocalyptic sovereign and katechon. Trump calls to those exiled,
calling them into the turmoil of the world; calling them as the stranger who seeks to
upset the worldly powers, for in Taubesan reasoning:
Apocalypticism is revolutionary, because it beholds the turning point not in

some indeterminate future but entirely proximate. Apocalyptic prophecy thus
focuses on the future and yet is fully set in the present. 55
The central sovereign decision, the exception, the katechonic, disruptive

statement of ‘Make America Great Again’ is therefore apocalyptic because in
Taubesan understanding, “apocalypticism attempts to gain knowledge about the
future from the past and the present”. As David Ratmoko has observed , “Schmitt’s
56
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 145
view of history can thus be said to be katechonic, seeking divine legitimization of

power, while Taubes is emphatically apocalyptic, seeking “a theological
delegitimization of political power as whole.” Yet while there may be a central
57
division on the question of political power between Schmitt and Taubes, for many of
those who follow in their wake, in realpolitik such a division collapses. What we see
in the workings and claims of Trump and his supporters is what Ratmoko identifies
as the issue with Karl Lowith’s ‘From Hegel to Nietzsche’(1941) which was a major
influence on Taubes: “What Lowith seems to confuse, however, is precisely the
spiritual, apocalyptic tradition with the imperial, ‘katechonic’ one.” Yet we would 58
argue that the ‘confusion’ is one that seeks a dialectic between the two positions so
as to attain the possibility of a new truth of the time and a new truth of how to act. For
both Schmitt and Taubes find common ground in identifying and opposing what
they view as the failures and failings of liberalism. Therefore, what could be
described as the confusion of Trump and Trumpism occurs precisely they see
themselves as speaking directly into what can be termed the problem of liberal
democracy that seeks to make people, time and history other than what they are. To
oppose liberal democracy therefore requires both the katechon and sovereign
decision of Schmitt and the apocalyptic of Taubes because liberalism is viewed as
both a political and a spiritual problem; that is, a problem of and for a rethought
political theology, requiring the new apocalyptic event of sovereign as katechon
and the katechon as sovereign.
So how might we understand what has occurred?

One option is the statement of Henry Kissinger from 2018 that: “I think Trump
may be one of these figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the
end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretence” . Yet to fully understand this,
59
we need to remember that it was Kissinger, as an assistant professor, who Taubes

notes did all the work that brought him to Harvard in the early 1950’s to give a lecture
60
and where he carried out a research programme in political theology.
Yet perhaps the most telling way of understanding, in this time of Trumpian
tweeting, of sovereign statements, of katechon action and apocalyptic direct
propaganda and feeling, is to remember, as Taubes comments: “…with each new
apocalyptic wave a new syntax is created, and the breakdown of meaning in
language makes people from the old age appear deranged to those from the new,
and vice versa.” 61
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 146
Postscript on the question of populism.

When I first presented this as a conference paper I was asked why I had not
62
engaged in a discussion of populism. My response was that we have to go

beneath populism, for populism is a response to what I have discussed, not that
which gives rise to it. To expand: The counter-revolution within capitalism is of those
who believe they are missing out and therefore not heard; or rather, not heard and so
missing out within capitalism. They want capitalism for them and for their concerns,
they do not want a release from capitalism. So, in this current context as opposed to
that of Weimar, there is no viable socialism or communism to act as counter-
revolutionary threat. Rather we have the hyper-real revolution/counter-revolution
versus what is taken to be the idea of socialism or communism. What we see is
therefore the belief of a revolt and a revolution – even as/if the status-quo of neo-
liberalism might continue; therefore, it is also a counter-revolution versus what Nancy
Fraser has critiqued as progressive-neoliberalism. And actually, Neo-liberalism is, in
63
its focus on the decision as exception, that is, the individual decision, a type of
Trumpian political theology made manifest.
Populism is therefore versus progressive neo-liberalism and globalization;
versus those who – and that are believed to – bring chaos (social and economic).
This is why we see the rise up of the populist sovereign and populist katechon. But
because the sovereign and the katechon arise as a counter-revolutionary
expression, this is why there cannot be a liberal sovereign or a liberal katechon.
So, how can we situate this also within Neo-liberalism because Trump and
Trumpism arises out of and yet against Neo-liberalism? While, as noted, Nancy
Fraser has articulated what constitutes progressive Neo-liberalism, perhaps we need
to consider Trump and Trumpism as the expression of populist Neo-liberalism.
Therefore, populism is an example of the counter-revolution within Neo-liberalism
and capitalism – the counter-revolutionary expression of identity politics – and in this,
as per George Groz, is really the symbol of the times.
This is because populism arises as the reaction of those seeking myth-making
that claims virtues out of that and those which are dismissed; and while populism
may be regarded as anti-democratic by those opposed to it, it is actually, as I
previously noted, deeply democratic in a Schmittean sense. Therefore, to try to
discuss or label populism as anti-democratic is actually to continue to create the
conditions that gave rise to it. This is also why values become central to populism,
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 147
for populism is not concerned with virtues because they are such things as
moderation, responsibility – and are to be answerable. If we think however, that for
64
populism values are that which are deemed lost and in need of recovery, then
populism is a counter-revolution for values versus progressive virtues. That is, in
populism, values are regarded as a ‘pure’ strategy for navigating ‘the now’ for the
masses ; that is, values are able to be ‘recovered’ and restored – by the sovereign.
65
But also, populism seeks to act as what I term ‘sovereign unto itself’ in making the
decision for ‘the exception’; that is, those values deemed ‘lost’. Yet these values in
themselves are seen also as katechonic values of the people that hold back the
chaos if these values are able to be restored. Therefore the impeachment of Trump
was, from the Democrats’ side, both an attempted sovereign decision (because to
impeach the president is ‘the exception’) and an attempted katechonic act to hold
back the chaos of Trump and Trumpism viewed as anti-Christ. And yet, such a
challenge to the Trumpian counter-revolution just perpetuates the populist belief that
values are under threat from Liberal virtues and that the Democrats are creating or
imposing or legislating chaos that is opposed to the sovereign decision of the
people. Furthermore, what does it mean if the sovereign decision and the katechonic
act both fail? In blunt terms, they are revealed as lacking legitimacy; in other words,
by failing in their impeachment the Democrats positioned themselves yet again as
creating the chaos that requires the katechon and the Trumpian sovereign decision.
Therefore, drawing on Jesi, Schmitt and Taubes, the failure of the revolt of the
impeachment solidified the counter-revolution of Trumpism as the apocalyptic
sovereign and katechon in a political theology of populist values opposed to liberal
virtues.
References
Jeffrey A. Berstein, “Review of The Weimar Moment” Constellation vol.20 no.3 2013.
Brett Easton Ellis, White (London, Picador, 2019),160.
Nancy Fraser, “The End of progressive Neoliberalism Dissent January 2, 2017,
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-
reactionary-populism-nancy-fraser
Mike Grimshaw, “Introduction: ‘A Very Rare Thing’ in Jacob Taubes, To Carl Schmitt.
Letters and Reflections, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), ix-xliii.
Victor Davis Hanson, The Case for Trump (New York: Basic Books, 2019),
Furio Jesi, Spartakus. The Symbology of Revolt (London: Seagull Books, 2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 148
Anton Kaes, Martin Jay & Edward Dimenberg (eds), The Weimar Republic
Sourcebook, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)
Harry Kessler, Berlin in Lights. The Diaries of Count Harry E Kessler (1918-1937);
Trans. & ed. Charles Kessler (New York: Grove Press, 1999)
Rudy Koshar, “Introduction” in Kaplan & Koshar (ed) The Weimar Moment:
Liberalism, Political Theology & Law (Lexington Books, 2012)
http://ebookcentralproquest.com/lib/canterbury/detail.action?docID=912301.
accessed 2019=11-25 14:20:19
Kishore Mahbubani Has the West Lost It? A Provocation (London: Allen Lane,
2018),23.
Helmut Peukert, “Theology and Enlightenment as unfinished projects”, in E. Mendieta
ed., The Frankfurt School on Religion (New York & London: Routledge, 2005)
Carl Schmitt, “On the Contradiction between Parliamentarianism and Democracy”
[orig. 1926) in The Weimar Republic Source Book, edited by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay &
Edward Dimendberg, 334-337. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans.
and with an introduction by George Schwab with a new foreword by Tracy B. Strong,
(University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, 2005)
Jared Yates Sexton, The People are going to Rise Up like The Waters Upon Your
Shore. A Study in American Rage (Berkeley, California: Counterpoint)
Jacob Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009
[orig. 1947])
Jacob Taubes, From Cult to Culture. Fragments Toward a Critique of Historic Reason,
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010)
Jacob Taubes, To Carl Schmitt. Letters and Reflections, (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2013)
Stephen Turner, “Schmitt, Telos, the collapse of the Weimar Constitution, and the
Bad Conscience of the Left”, in Luke & Agger (ed). A Journal of no Illusions: Telos,
Paul Piccone and the Americanization of Critical Theory (New York: Telos Press
Publishing, 2011)
G.L. Ulmen, “Translator’s Introduction” in Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the
International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, 9-34.( New York: Telos Press,
2003)
Eric Weitz, Weimar Germany. Promise and Tragedy. Princeton: Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2007)
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 149
Rick Wilson, Everything Trump Touches Dies (New York: Free Press, 2018)
Charles Winquist, The Surface of the Deep (The Davies Group, Publishers. 2003)
Vicky Ward, Kushner Inc. Greed. Ambition. Corruption. (New York: St. Martin’s Press,
2019)
Notes
1
Rick Wilson, Everything Trump Touches Dies (New York: Free Press, 2018), p.306.
2
Charles Winquist, The Surface of the Deep (The Davies Group, Publishers. 2003),1p.0.
3
Helmut Peukert, “Theology and Enlightenment as unfinished projects”, in E. Mendieta ed., The
Frankfurt School on Religion (New York & London: Routledge, 2005), p.368.
4
Ibid., p.353.
5
Winquist, The Surface of the Deep, p.10.
6
Ibid., p.xiii.
7
Ibid., p.xv.
8
“Introduction to the German Edition”, in Jacob Taubes, From Cult to Culture. Fragments Toward a
Critique of Historic Reason, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010), p.xix.
9
Harry Kessler, Berlin in Lights. The Diaries of Count Harry E Kessler (1918-1937); Trans. & ed. Charles
Kessler (New York: Grove Press, 1999), [Weds 5 February, 1919], p.64.
10
Harry Kessler, Berlin in Lights [24 May, 1922], p.181.
11
Andre Cavaletti (ed), in Furio Jesi, Spartakus. The Symbology of Revolt (London: Seagull Books,
2014), p.14.
12
Cavaletti (ed), in Jesi, Spartakus, p.15
13
Jared Yates Sexton, The People are going to Rise Up like The Waters Upon Your Shore. A Study in
American Rage (Berkeley, California: Counterpoint), p.21.
14
Jesi, Spartakus, p.60
15
Ibid., p.23.
16
Anton Kaes, Martin Jay & Edward Dimenberg (eds), The Weimar Republic Sourcebook, “Preface”,
pp.xvii-xviii.
17
Stephen Turner, “Schmitt, Telos, the collapse of the Weimar Constitution, and the Bad Conscience of
the Left”, in Luke & Agger (ed). A Journal of no Illusions: Telos, Paul Piccone and the Americanization
of Critical Theory (New York: Telos Press Publishing, 2011), p.119.
18
Rudy Koshar, “Introduction” in Kaplan & Koshar (ed) The Weimar Moment: Liberalism, Political
Theology & Law (Lexington Books, 2012)
http://ebookcentralproquest.com/lib/canterbury/detail.action?docID=912301. accessed 2019=11-25
14:20:19
19
Ibid. Koshar,
20
Jeffrey A. Berstein, “Review of The Weimar Moment”, Constellation vol.20 no.3 2013.
21
Koshar, “Introduction’”.
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 150
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.,
25
Jesi, Spatakus, p.40.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid., pp.51-52.
28
Ibid., p.60.
29
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. and with an
introduction by George Schwab with a new foreword by Tracy B. Strong, (University of Chicago Press:
Chicago & London, 2005), p.36.
30
Eric Weitz, Weimar Germany. Promise and Tragedy. (Princeton: Oxford: Princeton University Press,
2007), p.4.
31
G.L. Ulmen, “Translator’s Introduction” in Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International
Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, pp.9-34. (New York: Telos Press, 2003), p.15.
32
Mike Grimshaw, “Introduction: ‘A Very Rare Thing’ in Jacob Taubes, To Carl Schmitt. Letters and
Reflections, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), pp.ix-xliii.
33
Carl Schmitt, “On the Contradiction between Parliamentarianism and Democracy” [orig. 1926) in The
Weimar Republic Source Book, edited by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay & Edward Dimendberg, 334-337.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994),p.335.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Jacob Taubes, Taubes, J. (2013). To Carl Schmitt. Letters and Reflections, p.4.
37
Ibid., p.13.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., p.26.
40
Jacob Taubes in David Ratmoko, “Preface” in Jacob Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2009 [orig. 947]), xii.
41
Vicky Ward, Kushner Inc. Greed. Ambition. Corruption. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2019), p.101.
42
Jared Yates Sexton, pp. 24-25.
43
Ibid., p.20.
44
Kishore Mahbubani Has the West Lost It? A Provocation (London: Allen Lane, 2018), p.23.
45
Brett Easton Ellis, White (London, Picador, 2019), p.160.
46
Ibid., p.164
47
Victor Davis Hanson, The Case for Trump (New York: Basic Books, 2019), p.19.
48
Ibid., p.225.
49
Ibid., p.277.
50
Rick Wilson, Everything Trump Touches Dies, p.63.
51
Jacob Taubes, “Theology & political theory” in From Cult to Culture, p.233.
52
Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, p.31.
53
Ibid., p.32.
54
Ratmoko, “Preface” in Jacob Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, p.xv.
55
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 151
56
Ibid., p.32.
57
David Ratmoko, “Preface” in Jacob Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, p.xvi.
58
Ibid., p.xvii.
59
As quoted in Hanson, The Case for Trump, p.2.
60
Taubes, To Carl Schmitt, p.51.
61
62
At the ASCP (Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy) conference, Melbourne, 4-6
December, 2019.
63
Nancy Fraser, “The End of progressive Neoliberalism Dissent January 2, 2017,
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-reactionary-populism-
nancy-fraser
64
I thank Monte Pemberton for making this point in his excellent conference paper “Virtues and Values
in Australian Political Culture”, ACSCP conference, Melbourne, 4-6 December 2019.
65
This also arises out of Pemberton’s paper.
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/1171 152

9 Grimshaw Trump

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Grimshaw Trump

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Grimshaw Trump

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTINENTAL THOUGHT & THEORY: A JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM

Volume 3 | 1: Special Issue: The Problem of Trump

The legacy of Weimar ?:

Trump is a problem we’ll be a long-time in solving. The damage to our

This essay seeks to use a particular, non-American perspective and history to

the problem of Trump refers to a central, decisive moment of early 20 century th

because theology operates across disciplinary boundaries. Trump as a problem is

The challenge occasioned by this is the fissuring of secular modernity itself

the twinning of counter-revolution or revolution is central to understanding what has

problem of Trump: is Trump and Trumpism a revolution or a revolt? One way to

incredibly substantial Weimar Republic Source Book articulated:

a laboratory for modernity, the Weimar period offered a panoply of political,

because as Jeffrey Bernstein observed,

Weimar teaches us about the growing dissatisfaction with liberal, political

Of course, in undertaking a hermeneutical approach, analogies can be read

discussion on political propaganda during a revolt speaks to the Trumpian moment

crystallization of the historical present so as to evoke the epiphany of mythical

To understand this, we can engage with Jesi’s categories of revolt and

who are conscious of wanting to alter in historical time a political, social,

apocalyptic in what is taken to be a secular world of the triumph of liberal

The belief in parliamentarianism, in government by discussion, belongs to the

A concern thus arises: is sovereignty – even sovereignty in the name of

things or ideas, is therefore positioned as the constant threat to democracy and

expression of the sovereign-decision: an exception made within democracy that

experience of time and history as a delimited respite, as a term or even a last

Therefore, to rethink Trump and Trumpism in light of Weimar is also to

Bannon had believed and still believes – that Trump is a transformational

sovereign, who would disrupt and restore; a counter-revolutionary sovereign, whose

this, as David Ratmoko comments, “Taubes’ study shows apocalypticism to be a

Apocalypticism is revolutionary, because it beholds the turning point not in

The central sovereign decision, the exception, the katechonic, disruptive

view of history can thus be said to be katechonic, seeking divine legitimization of

So how might we understand what has occurred?

we need to remember that it was Kissinger, as an assistant professor, who Taubes

Postscript on the question of populism.

engaged in a discussion of populism. My response was that we have to go

You might also like