RSS

January 9, 2008

Gunnar Schmidt, AEG, Silver Contributor (64)

Interesting arguments, but the last paragraph on National Socialism is ridiculous.

Anti-Poverty measures have nothing to do with the Nazi era. Other European countries are welfare states as well. And even in the US, more and more people long for national health care etc.

January 9, 2008

Jens F. Laurson, Center for International Relations, Silver Contributor (30)

In the essay version of this OpEd, the penultimate sentence before our allusion to National Socialism is the following:

"Equally bad (or worse), Germany is on a sharp trajectory toward racial selection, parading in the guise of socialist economic bliss: [As long as there are unemployed *Germans*, no *Germans* should fear to have taken their jobs by cheaper (read: inferior) non-*German* laborers."

If you read that out loud (best in German) and accentuate "German" just right, you'll quickly know why the authors are deeply troubled about the renaissance of racism and xenophobia - this time on the left and under the guise of "economic justice" - which betrays the utter lack of understand about both: economic matters _and_ justice.

Sadly that sentence was not made up by us but is more or less a verbatim quote from a high ranking Social Democrat... I think Peter Struck may have said it.

And all exaggeration aside: I think the title "National Socialists" would rather well suit "The Left" - because it aptly describes their political program. No silly mustache is needed to undermine liberty, mind you.

January 10, 2008

Oliver Hauss, -, Platinum Contributor (348)

Need I say "Godwin's law"? No, I don't. The fact that the authors cite Milton Friedman who himself admitted in his later years that a lot of his earlier teachings didn't quite stand up to the test of time shows a serious problem in the economic debate in Germany: It's stuck in dogmatism. Nowhere is this illustrated better than by the use of false dychotomies: "Germans considering it rather more immoral to pay a low wage than not to hire in the first place" -as if those were the two only existing alternatives. It is further illustrated by the use of unreferenced quotations in the comments section. In such a fashion, I can contribute anything to anyone. After all, research is hard work and if you just say something gripping enough, people might just believe it without any kind of evidence. Given the lambasting of the social democrats while at the same time stating that Merkel benefits from Schröder's reforms, one has to wonder if the authors forgot which party Schröder belonged to....

The authors claim that their kind of "liberalism" "inoculates" against fascism. Strangely enough, it failed in that effect miserably when it mattered, so claiming it would be able to do so in future is highly frivolous. This kind of "liberalism", quite the contrary, was precisely what led the masses to believe rat catcher who promised them that their misery would come to an end if only they supported him and did away with all those they chose as scapegoats. As such, the answer "Wait, didn't they try this once before?" can equally well be asked concerning the ideologies they push here. Their understanding of history is doubly strange in their attempt to bring the members of a party whose members were murdered by the Nazis into proximity with their tormentors and the party of Otto Wels in proximity of those he spoke out against. Given that several conservative politicians have rightly come under fire for very revisionist attitudes and statements, this seems a rather questionable attempt at suggesting "the others aren't really any better".

The authors rightly point out that wage subsidies lead to exploitation. They argue against minimum wages (despite the fact that they are standard even in what is incorrectly depicted by many of their brothers in spirit as a kind of Friedman-land, the US). So the question is: How SHOULD the people affected make a living? Rather than offering a solution, the authors lambast everything that is being tried. This is pure destructive criticism without any serious suggestions for solutions. The "liberty" the authors thus promote thus fails to include some of the most fundamental liberties. The German constitution names as first and foremost of all rights the right for human dignity. It prescribes that any and all efforts of the public hand should first and foremost keep this right in mind and promote it. Rather than offering a solution for the problems at hand, the authors suggest that -in complete disregard of the constitution- whether or not a given individual enjoys dignity should be left to a nonchalant type of "liberalism" which in really doesn't give liberty to the people, but rather transforms it into a commodity that's available for cash. That they authors try to put those with more respect for these demands of the constitution into one pot with national socialism discredits them thoroughly. The fact that they have to resort to the cheap shot of all arguments "Anyone who doesn't support our opinion is a Nazi in disguise" illustrates pretty well they lack in actual arguments. No one said it was easy to fulfill the demands of the constitution AND run an effective economy. The solution, however, can hardly be to say "To hell with the constitution".

To speak with Churchill: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It is a form of government that lives through problematic compromises most of which work less well than one side's solution would perhaps have. Many a compromise will be nonsensical or include nonsensical parts to put up with the demands of one side in negotiations. But such is the way of democracy. To demand anything else is NOT promoting liberty. It is, in fact, the precise opposite. All the more if it stoops so low as to slander people for disagreeing.

January 10, 2008

Christian E. Rieck, GIGA German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Silver Contributor (66)

Even though I deeply dislike the style of their essay, Laurson and Pieler are right in one thing: Germany has long had a troubled relationship with liberalism. Many things “Anglo-Saxon” (and all things “French”) were discarded as being cosmopolitan nonsense, Western melting-pot impurity. However, this “Sonderweg”, the infamous “German way” has proven to be a dead-end historically. Here again, I agree with Laurson and Pieler, when they imply that liberalism needs liberals to survive. Whenever there is a lack of sympathy for liberal thought in the general public, the danger of illiberalism and ultimately totalitarianism looms.

The postwar political consensus, however, is grounded in a firm belief that democracy has to bring concrete benefits to all, not just to a few. Hence, the bipartisan support for all initiatives to reduce poverty – whose very existence, by the way, had been fiercely disputed for decades – through redistribution. So, even if it is true that German centre-right parties might feel less liberal when compared with those of liberalism’s homelands (of the Friedmanesque or at least Smithonian order), the steady development towards more and more acknowledgement of the differences within Germany (in quality of life, of education, of security even) is my view proof of an awakening to reality. A liberal reality that is, one that accepts those differences but, in the name of democracy, strives to overcome them.

Social Democrats are no Fascists (redistribution and welfare with differing doses of populism have been a feature of all political systems throughout the world). But then again, neither are the Christian Democrats (even though I would see the clear and present danger for freedom in the arguments supporting the anti-terrorism legislation coming from their side of the aisle). In fact, so strong is the bipartisan postwar consensus on “middle ground politics” on everything from the economic to the environment to the social to the foreign policy that the real problem for democracy stems from a virtual lack of opposition to the political mainstream. The two big parties have become in many ways indistinguishable.

Democracy thrives on the basis of political struggle – and the Grand Coalition is not helping (apart from not being “grand” at all). The smaller parties should seize this opportunity to formulate pragmatic policies beyond mere ideology that are real-world alternatives to the mainstream. The Greens used to be eco-radicals, the Liberals were once the strongest advocate of civil liberties. They can become that “political conscience” again. There is the liberal heritage Laurson and Pieler are looking for.

January 10, 2008

Christian E. Rieck, GIGA German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Silver Contributor (66)

Ah, and one more thing: the renationalization of trade politics (together with the unsavoury ethnic dimension attached to it) is by no means a German privilege. It is, much on the contrary, a deep-seated problem in all developed economies. Singling out Germany for any “traditional” disdain for globalization diverges much-needed attention from the bigger issue: That the West as a whole has not yet found a way to bind the ghosts of globalization (with both the free flow of goods AND people) it has itself unleashed on the emerging world with so much furor – and that are now hounding even the most “globalized” of economies.

January 11, 2008

Jens F. Laurson, Center for International Relations, Silver Contributor (30)

Need I say “Godwin’s law”? No, I don’t. The fact that the authors cite Milton Friedman who himself admitted in his later years that a lot of his earlier teachings didn’t quite stand up to the test of time shows a serious problem in the economic debate in Germany: It’s stuck in dogmatism. Nowhere is this illustrated better than by the use of false dychotomies: “Germans considering it rather more immoral to pay a low wage than not to hire in the first place” -as if those were the two only existing alternatives.

The authors cited a quote by Milton Friedman that he did not – to our knowledge – disavow. We do not quite follow the claim that the act of quoting someone who has “earlier teachings didn’t quite stand up to the test of time” shows the serious problem of a German economic debate stuck in dogmatism, but we tend to agree that it is. Not surprisingly, we do not see ourselves as contributing to that dogmatization, however.

The accusation of us using a false dichotomy is – after a little careful consideration – only confusing. We don’t say anything about choice, we say something about attitudes. Maybe Herr Hauss suggests that we imply that certain jobs would simply not be, lest a low wage be paid. This is simply a fact for some jobs (namely all those that don’t offer profitability at higher wages being paid). It is admittedly not necessarily true for all jobs at the lower end of the wage spectrum. But then again, that’s not a claim we made.

It is further illustrated by the use of unreferenced quotations in the comments section. In such a fashion, I can contribute anything to anyone. After all, research is hard work and if you just say something gripping enough, people might just believe it without any kind of evidence.

Nicely polemicized, indeed. And certainly a valid, if flippant, critique of much Opinion Journalism. (At least as flippant as our article, which apparently rankles the Germans who perhaps wish for more seriousness while discussing grave matters like illiberalism and economics?) It’s missing the point, though – as the ‘unreferenced quotation’ (citation needed!) is not used as a quotation at all, merely as point of emphasis, as may also be done by underlining, italics, etc. all the common devices of the journalistic trade. There’s no attribution because no one is being quoted – the phrase is offered to exemplify a general mood – of something that could well be heard in political discussions. I (JFL) offer a source in my comment to illuminate that it did not come out of thin air. Our point is in any case not to document what has precisely been said or not, but we wanted to lay out a scenario that a reader with familiarity about German political and economic discussion will recognize.

Given the lambasting of the social democrats while at the same time stating that Merkel benefits from Schröder’s reforms, one has to wonder if the authors forgot which party Schröder belonged to….

Actually, it is the authors who wonder if the current heads of the Social Democratic Party have forgotten which party Schröder belonged to…

Really, now… whereto is this silly claim supposed to lead? We criticize the current SPD’s populist rhetoric, not the Agenda 2010. You might as well scold someone for criticizing the Republican party for attacking affirmative action, by reminding them that Lincoln was a Republican. For someone who is a stickler about logic…

The authors claim that their kind of “liberalism” “inoculates” against fascism. Strangely enough, it failed in that effect miserably when it mattered, so claiming it would be able to do so in future is highly frivolous. This kind of “liberalism”, quite the contrary, was precisely what led the masses to believe rat catcher who promised them that their misery would come to an end if only they supported him and did away with all those they chose as scapegoats.

We are baffled by this comment. What kind of liberalism (in ominous quotation marks, no less) does the reader accuse us of propagating? And how did that quotation-mark-besotted liberalism cause the rise of Hitler (we assume that’s what is meant with the reference to the pied piper)?

It wasn’t too much liberalism that offered the stepping stone toward Fascism. Rather highly illiberal forces on both the left and the right, paved the way. To claim that a steadfast dedication to liberal principles is a great way to fend off the infringements of the state upon the freedoms of the individual and therefore society is not – or should not be – controversial, at all.

Their understanding of history is doubly strange in their attempt to bring the members of a party whose members were murdered by the Nazis into proximity with their tormentors and the party of Otto Wels in proximity of those he spoke out against. Given that several conservative politicians have rightly come under fire for very revisionist attitudes and statements, this seems a rather questionable attempt at suggesting “the others aren’t really any better”.

I understand the desire to defend the SPD in these comments - and its valiant moments in history, but I am not sure how that past – whether from 8 years ago or from 68 years ago – has any tangible affect on our arguments. We can’t quite make out the point of the accusation that follows… the authors are trying to do what?

The authors rightly point out that wage subsidies lead to exploitation. They argue against minimum wages (despite the fact that they are standard even in what is incorrectly depicted by many of their brothers in spirit as a kind of Friedman-land, the US).

As any keen (or even sloppy) observer of the economic systems in countries like the US or UK will know: You can’t compare a minimum wage and its effects in a country with a maximum of economic flexibility (e.g. as regards hiring employers and/or laying them off) to their rather different impact in a country with such an enormous amount of economic rigidity as Germany. It is reasonable to assume that the negative effects of a minimum wage, outweighing the direct positive effects in any case, will be far greater in the latter scenario. And the minimum wage is used for blatantly protectionist means, doesn’t help in further making its case, of course.

So the question is: How SHOULD the people affected make a living? Rather than offering a solution, the authors lambast everything that is being tried.

May we humbly suggest: Work enough hours to make up for the low wage? Oh, wait, that’s not allowed for the low-income earners. And therein lies the problem. Which means that it is only right to lambaste “everything that is being tried” – because everything that is being tried is mostly BS. Stop penalizing labor – that’s the first step. And stop subsidizing labor – that’s the second. There is welfare for those who can’t find a job that pays a living wage (unlikely enough) and it would stop employers from offering wages that no one would take, for lack of perspective. The idea of ‘easing’ the unemployed back into work by subsidizing their low-value labor is great – but the unintended consequences are horrid.

This is pure destructive criticism without any serious suggestions for solutions. The “liberty” the authors thus promote thus fails to include some of the most fundamental liberties. The German constitution names as first and foremost of all rights the right for human dignity.

The authors were not aware that “human dignity” meant that every person had a right to a minimum wage, regardless of their productivity. Dignity is, in our definition, not a monetary sum. We suspect that the authors of the Basic Law did not have that in mind, either. We don’t argue against basic welfare – but there is, eventually, a line where that crosses toward socialism. Especially when “dignity” is defined as: "No one should have to work their ass off and still have to struggle." We do not find struggle per se immoral.

It prescribes that any and all efforts of the public hand should first and foremost keep this right in mind and promote it. Rather than offering a solution for the problems at hand, the authors suggest that whether or not a given individual enjoys dignity should be left to a nonchalant type of “liberalism” which in really doesn’t give liberty to the people, but rather transforms it into a commodity that’s available for cash.

Once again we are confused by the above. But if the reader means to suggest that we are more comfortable to leave individuals as free actors in a fair social market economy as opposed to anyone – politicians or social commentators or Herr Hauss – defining what “dignity” means, then yes: Guilty as accused. Where the anti-humanist slam comes from, or what the intent of it is, we cannot discern.

That they authors try to put those with more respect for these demands of the constitution into one pot with national socialism discredits them thoroughly. The fact that they have to resort to the cheap shot of all arguments “Anyone who doesn’t support our opinion is a Nazi in disguise” illustrates pretty well they lack in actual arguments. No one said it was easy to fulfill the demands of the constitution AND run an effective economy. The solution, however, can hardly be to say “To hell with the constitution”.

We have no beef with the German Basic Law – and neither our argument nor proposed solutions claim to chuck it. Nor do we claim that those who do not agree with our point of view are “Nazis in disguise”. (We merely remind that the nomenclature that blends ‘nationalism’ with ‘socialism’ has an unhealthy pedigree.) This claim is absurd. We do, however, want to warn against the illiberal tendencies that too easily creep into public arguments and the political/economic discourse.

To speak with Churchill: “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” It is a form of government that lives through problematic compromises most of which work less well than one side’s solution would perhaps have. Many a compromise will be nonsensical or include nonsensical parts to put up with the demands of one side in negotiations. But such is the way of democracy. To demand anything else is NOT promoting liberty. It is, in fact, the precise opposite. All the more if it stoops so low as to slander people for disagreeing.

We agree with everything said – except the insinuation that we are in any way suggesting or displaying anti-Democratic tendencies. But the argument that any law or policy duly adopted in a Democracy is, by virtue of having come from a democratic process, inoculated against critique is horrifyingly naïve. A country that proved very democratic (when others struggled with that concept) once decided to intern its citizens of Asiatic descend in camps. This was a “nonsensical compromise”, we suppose – following the above argumentation. We hope that, had we lived at the time and had the ability to comment we would not have shrugged it off as “such is the way of democracy”. The way of democracy is the vital and vigorous exchange of ideas and concepts. As is the right and often the need to warn when the fabric of the liberal order is under threat (from within). As is your right to vigorously disagree.

jfl, gp