In 1924 the brochure of a then rather unknown constitutional lawyer named Carl Schmitt appeared. This brochure was entitled “The intellectual and historical situation of today’s parliamentarism” and it was quite something. Because Schmitt attacked the Weimar Republic head-on in his essay: He differentiated between “parliamentarism” here and “popular rule” there. The difference between democracy and dictatorship is only of secondary importance.
The dictator could not do an injustice at all because he was, so to speak, the avatar of the entire “people”, explained Schmitt in 1933. One can write something like that when the “rule of the people” has finally defeated “parliamentarism”. In the United States, the story turned out differently: