A year later, Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper ""Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus"" (roughly: "The Intellectual-Historical Situation of Today's Parliamentarianism", translated as "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy" by Ellen Kennedy). Schmitt criticized the institutional practices of liberal politics, arguing that they are justified by a faith in rational discussion and openness that is at odds with actual parliamentary party politics, in which outcomes are hammered out in smoke-filled rooms by party leaders. Schmitt also posits an essential division between the liberal doctrine of separation of powers and what he holds to be the nature of democracy itself, the identity of the rulers and the ruled. Although many critics of Schmitt today, such as Stephen Holmes in his "The Anatomy of Anti-Liberalism", take exception to his fundamentally authoritarian outlook, the idea of incompatibility between liberalism and democracy is one reason for the continued interest in his political philosophy.