Liberals: Out of Ideas?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Europe is also making the disenchanting journey from social democracy, but via a different route. Its elites had not foreseen that a virtually unchecked Muslim immigration might hijack the welfare state and poison the postwar culture of relative tolerance that supported its politics. To the contrary, Europe’s leftist elites lulled the electorates into a false feeling of security that the new arrivals were simply doing the work that unprecedented low European birth rates were leaving undone. No social or cultural costs were to be incurred. Transaction closed. Well, it was not quite so simple. And, while the workforce still needs more workers, the economies of Europe have been dragged down by social guarantees to large families who do not always have a wage-earner in the house. So, even in the morally self-satisfied Scandinavian and Low Countries, the assuring left-wing bromides are no longer believed.
[/quote]

I’m going to focus on the above part, because it is possibly the one that most blatantly shows the ignorance and bias of the author (the rest is more cleverly hidden behind biased views).

The “virtually unchecked Muslim immigration” happened not only in the more left-wing countries in Europe, while they had left-wing countries, but also during the watch of conservative parties. For example, Germany had a conservative government (CDU, which are Christian Conservatives) for several decades before the current (center-left) one. Remember Helmut Kohl? Large guy, big friend of Ronald Reagan? Not only literally millions of muslims immigrated into Germany on his watch, he was also very much responsible for the dramatic blunder that was the reunification process with East Germany.

I am a liberal, and I know perfectly the impact that the 10% of muslim population in Central and Northern Europe has – I lived there, and I saw with my own eyes the dramatic cultural clashes it causes. Only somebody completely ignorant of European History can blame the “invasion of muslims” on liberals, or in the fact that liberals were the only ones saying it would be of no consequence. There were plenty of conservative governments in Europe for the last 50 years that did nothing to stop it.

On the contrary: in many countries right-wingers were the ones that avidly supported the whole inflow of cheap labor. It was NOT the “leftist elites” that said there would be no problem. It was the capitalist right, who thought the cheap labor would allow them to have a leverage against the unions.

The proof is not only in Germany: a couple of years ago, when the Netherlands shifted right, things did not improve. The new right-wing government did NOTHING to improve the situation, or to stop the inflow of muslims. The inflow has, in fact, increased.

It has actually been the liberals that have been more vocal against the attitudes of the muslims. Theo van Gogh, a liberal, anti-religious Dutch filmaker, great-great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, brother of the famous painter Vincent van Gogh, made last year a movie (called “Submission”) that clearly attacked the muslim culture and specifically the way it treats women (Submission: Part I (TV Short 2004) - IMDb). Shortly after the film was shown on Dutch TV, he was stabbed by a fundamentalist muslim for it, in Amsterdam. Under the watch of a right-wing government.

The funny thing is that the US has the exact same immigration “problem” – in the very near future, the biggest ethnic group in this country will be latinos – it’s just that we get a different mix… Having a couple of Oceans between the US and the Middle East does present some “advantages”. Europe doesn’t have that geographical advantage – as proven over 1300 years ago when it was invaded by the Moors (http://www.sonhex.dk/under.htm).

So, until conservatives are able to present an actual solution to the immigration issue, and have some results, I’d suggest they stop blaming it on the liberals. It just makes conservatives look ignorant.

Oh, and talking about ignorant: if Europe is “making the disenchanting journey from social democracy”, why did the left have dramatic wins in the last two large elections in Western European countries (which were in Portugal – where a mind-boggling-never-before-seen 70% of the mandates went to the left – and Spain, which put a leftist new government in place to replace the US-friendly center-right Aznar)?

The only countries in Europe, in fact, that are voting right these days are the old “Eastern Block” countries, that are still very much enchanted by the great promises that were given by the new right. Let’s see how long that lasts…

hspeder –

I think you made some good points.

But note, this isn’t conservatives critiquing liberals – it’s a liberal critiquing liberals.

BTW, Germany may have had a center-right coalition government, but I wouldn’t say it was “conservative” as compared with the Thatcher or Reagan governments. Maybe Makkun has an opinion?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
hspeder –

I think you made some good points.

But note, this isn’t conservatives critiquing liberals – it’s a liberal critiquing liberals.[/quote]

Well, the only justification is for you to find another liberal article that contradicts these ideas…if you are being balanced.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well, the only justification is for you to find another liberal article that contradicts these ideas…if you are being balanced. [/quote]

What? BB needs to justify himself? He’s more than adequately explained himself. He never said he was balanced.

I hope you were joking, but being sleep deprived has robbed me of my ability to discern.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hspeder –

I think you made some good points.

But note, this isn’t conservatives critiquing liberals – it’s a liberal critiquing liberals.

Well, the only justification is for you to find another liberal article that contradicts these ideas…if you are being balanced. [/quote]

I am neither a news source nor do I claim to be fair and balanced.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hspeder –

I think you made some good points.

But note, this isn’t conservatives critiquing liberals – it’s a liberal critiquing liberals.

Well, the only justification is for you to find another liberal article that contradicts these ideas…if you are being balanced.

I am neither a news source nor do I claim to be fair and balanced. [/quote]

It seems that in most contexts “fair and balanced” means a position Professor X agrees with, whatever that may be.
Sorry, did I say X? I meant liberals in general.
My bad.

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
It seems that in most contexts “fair and balanced” means a position Professor X agrees with, whatever that may be.
Sorry, did I say X? I meant liberals in general.
My bad.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t mean that. I am glad that there are those of different points of view who present their thoughts in well thought out sentences aside from screaming out, “what are the alternatives!!” However, I did find it funny that one who seems to share your political view point would post news from what they consider to be “liberal” news sources…but only as long as they agreed with his point of view. Apparently I am not the only one who noted that.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No, it doesn’t mean that. I am glad that there are those of different points of view who present their thoughts in well thought out sentences aside from screaming out, “what are the alternatives!!” However, I did find it funny that one who seems to share your political view point would post news from what they consider to be “liberal” news sources…but only as long as they agreed with his point of view. Apparently I am not the only one who noted that.
[/quote]

As far as liberal opinion sources go, I thought you’d be happy that I read them.

I’m much more like an opinion writer – I craft arguments when I have an opinion (which is often, in case you hadn’t noticed) – hell, I’m a lawyer – it’s tough for me not to take a side. =-)

Anyway, I try to keep an open mind – and I think I do pretty well with novel issues or stuff I haven’t thought about – but of course if I’ve already settled on a position I’m not going to go out of my way to find your side of the story. That would deprive you of all your fun.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
hspeder –

I think you made some good points.[/quote]

Thank you. :slight_smile:

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But note, this isn’t conservatives critiquing liberals – it’s a liberal critiquing liberals.[/quote]

I’m sorry if I don’t buy that – this guy clearly has (developed?) very strong feelings against liberalism in general and social-democracy in particular. He is taking a right-wing stance.

People do change political affiliations. Remember Condoleezza Rice? She was a Democrat once. If that’s not radical enough for you, do you know that the current head honcho of the EU, Durao Barroso, although affilitated with the center-right for the past 10 years (and elected to his position by the center-right in the European Senate), was once a communist, affiliated with Portugal’s PCTP/MRPP (translated the acronym means “Communist Party of the Portuguese Workers / Popular Revolutionary Movement”)?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, Germany may have had a center-right coalition government, but I wouldn’t say it was “conservative” as compared with the Thatcher or Reagan governments.[/quote]

Helmut was close friends with both Thatcher and Reagan. His political ideas were very similar, and their were strong political allies. However, I’ll admit that Thatcher and Reagan got away with implementing more right-wing policies than Helmut ever could – Helmut would have had a huge fight in his hands if he attempted, for example, to lax Germany’s very worker-friendly job laws.

Interestingly both countries (Germany and the UK) shifted slightly left – to Blair and Schroder (which, are again, politically in the same place, i.e., a somewhat liberalistic center, aka “the third way”) – but with dramatically different results: the UK’s economy is healthier than ever, while Germany’s economy is sinking at an alarming rate.

The impact of the military alliance of the UK with the US (vs the refusal to do so by Germany) does not explain it at all: Europe is still the UK’s biggest market, by far, and the UK had (economically) nothing to gain with staying on the US’s side. On the contrary, especially because UK public opinion was clearly against the alliance.

So, how can two almost politically identical governments have two dramatically opposite results?

Possibly because things are not really as black and white as some people (on both sides of the political spectrum, I’ll admit) will say they are, and just claiming that you’re “left” or “center” or “right” or “conservative” or “liberal” really says very little about your belief’s ability to solve a country’s problems. There’s several layers of complexity that make the whole thing very gray…

hspder,

good post, mostly agree.

[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hspeder –

I think you made some good points.

Thank you. :slight_smile:

BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, Germany may have had a center-right coalition government, but I wouldn’t say it was “conservative” as compared with the Thatcher or Reagan governments.

Helmut was close friends with both Thatcher and Reagan. His political ideas were very similar, and their were strong political allies. However, I’ll admit that Thatcher and Reagan got away with implementing more right-wing policies than Helmut ever could – Helmut would have had a huge fight in his hands if he attempted, for example, to lax Germany’s very worker-friendly job laws.[/quote]

I would agree that German politics have always been pretty much centered on consensus - and due to its federal structure, it is actually quite hard to push through any binding decisions without a broad consensus backing them up. On the other hand, federalism has always been extremely strong. Look at the 16 different school systems - the state has no right to interfere here. Or Bavaria’s (christian-social) decision in the 80ies to interpret the pro-abortion decision of the constitutional court in its own “special” way.

Some people argue that Thatcher with her radical labour market reforms in the early 80ies laid the groundwork for Britains success now - based on deregulated employment markets and economic liberalism (not to in the American sense, mind you). Germany is doing these now - and it does not at all go down well with Schroeder’s social-democrat constituency.

Yup. But Blair did not join the Iraq war for economic, but rather ideologic reasons - I am quite sure he was convinced that he was doing the right thing, even if it went against public opinion or parts of his own cabinet.

[quote]So, how can two almost politically identical governments have two dramatically opposite results?

Possibly because things are not really as black and white as some people (on both sides of the political spectrum, I’ll admit) will say they are, and just claiming that you’re “left” or “center” or “right” or “conservative” or “liberal” really says very little about your belief’s ability to solve a country’s problems. There’s several layers of complexity that make the whole thing very gray…
[/quote]

I agree with that. It’s quite interesting to see that even the word “liberal” has totally different meanings in the US, UK and Germany. The funny thing is that for example in Germany (and Austria) the liberal parties have had their right-wing moments. Check old FDP adverts from the 50ies or Haider’s liberal party in Austria.

Nightynight,
Makkun

[quote]makkun wrote:
Some people argue that Thatcher with her radical labour market reforms in the early 80ies laid the groundwork for Britains success now - based on deregulated employment markets and economic liberalism (not to in the American sense, mind you). Germany is doing these now - and it does not at all go down well with Schroeder’s social-democrat constituency.[/quote]

True. Deregulated employment markets tend to have a very immediate and tangible benefit, and many companies tend to levitate towards countries that have them. However, I don’t believe that is the only thing that benefitted the UK’s (and Ireland’s, for that matter) economy – history, language and culture clearly play a huge part, and they all boil down to the fact that, even though the UK and Ireland have the EU as their biggest business partner, they are, for historic reasons, the gateways of Europe to the rest of the world; specifically, the UK has strong historical ties with India, China (through Hong Kong) and, of course, the US, that make it a natural hub of business in Europe.

Even the UK and Ireland’s entertainment industry plays a big part in their economic success – and don’t tell me Thatcher had any part in that too.

A much easier argument is made for the opposite: as the Conservatives were voted out of the UK’s government, the UK’s economy was in pretty bad shape, with terrible unemployment and GDP growth numbers; if it was Thatcher’s Conservatives were so great, why did things improve exponentially after Blair was elected?

Germany will be an even more interesting case; I’ll be curious to see if Schroder is indeed able to deregulate the job market, and if he is, how successful he will be. My political beliefs tell me it’s a very bad idea, as does my experience – fear of losing one’s job might be a powerful motivator (and the Germans do need motivation), but it’s many times a self-defeating one (and one I could NEVER cope with, hence my choice to go back to an academic career): the country might get productivity gains, but it breeds a whole new set of social problems that may let Germany end up in a worse place than it is already.

The really bad thing is that it might even work for the short term, but have catastrophic results (to Germany’s quality of life) in the long term.

This is one of the situations that I actually hope I’m wrong. I’d like nothing better than to see Germany – and Europe as a whole – come back as an economic force to be reckoned with.

[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hspder –

I think you made some good points.

Thank you. :slight_smile:

BostonBarrister wrote:
But note, this isn’t conservatives critiquing liberals – it’s a liberal critiquing liberals.

hspder wrote: I’m sorry if I don’t buy that – this guy clearly has (developed?) very strong feelings against liberalism in general and social-democracy in particular. He is taking a right-wing stance. [/quote]

He isn’t taking a right-wing stance. He’s taking an anti-Dean, anti-Kerry stance. This guy is a classic Clinton supporter – he likes centrists. He also is a hawk on foreign policy – at least in comparison to the mainstream of the Democratic party.

No, this guy isn’t a right-winger – just a guy who is fed up with the left-wingers. THe attitude is actually quite representative of a lot of Democrats I know who don’t trust their own party on national security issues, and were dismayed by their party’s showing in the last election.

Yes, people do make such changes. It’s just that this person didn’t.

[quote] BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, Germany may have had a center-right coalition government, but I wouldn’t say it was “conservative” as compared with the Thatcher or Reagan governments.

hspder wrote:
Helmut was close friends with both Thatcher and Reagan. His political ideas were very similar, and their were strong political allies. However, I’ll admit that Thatcher and Reagan got away with implementing more right-wing policies than Helmut ever could – Helmut would have had a huge fight in his hands if he attempted, for example, to lax Germany’s very worker-friendly job laws. [/quote]

That was my point. Germany under Kohl supported us in foreign policy – it was hard for him not to given the Cold War. And perhaps if he wanted to he would have gone further. But the fact remains he didn’t, and probably could not have – and the German economy remains in the thrall of over-regulation, particularly with regard to labor (though I envy their cap gains tax rate – I guess even that rate isn’t enough to overcome the efficiency hit that the labor regs put on).

[quote]hspder wrote:
Interestingly both countries (Germany and the UK) shifted slightly left – to Blair and Schroder (which, are again, politically in the same place, i.e., a somewhat liberalistic center, aka “the third way”) – but with dramatically different results: the UK’s economy is healthier than ever, while Germany’s economy is sinking at an alarming rate. [/quote]

That’s due largely to the fact that Tony Blair’s “third way” has been liberal in social areas but not moving away from Thatcher’s basic economic reforms. I don’t recall any movement away from her de-regulation, and when you combine that with the openning of trade that’s occurred it has equalled great economic growth for G.B.

Germany, on the other hand, shackles its businesses with regulations.

BTW, as an ever-so-slightly related aside, I don’t know too much about bankruptcy laws, but I’ve recently read some stuff suggesting that liberal bankruptcy laws in the U.S. foster entrepreneurial activity. Do you know how “debtor-friendly” the laws of Germany and G.B. are?

[quote]hspder wrote:
The impact of the military alliance of the UK with the US (vs the refusal to do so by Germany) does not explain it at all: Europe is still the UK’s biggest market, by far, and the UK had (economically) nothing to gain with staying on the US’s side. On the contrary, especially because UK public opinion was clearly against the alliance. [/quote]

Well, not so fast. The U.S. is the largest market easily available, so the potential for growth is very high. Also, of course, there are cultural factors – the “Anglosphere” idea and the “special relationship” are culturally ingrained, if not necessarily in those precise words.

And finally, there’s the fact that as a matter of foreign policy, Blair and Bush actually seem to agree on a focus on making certain “rogue regimes” don’t get WMD.

[quote]hspder wrote:
So, how can two almost politically identical governments have two dramatically opposite results?

Possibly because things are not really as black and white as some people (on both sides of the political spectrum, I’ll admit) will say they are, and just claiming that you’re “left” or “center” or “right” or “conservative” or “liberal” really says very little about your belief’s ability to solve a country’s problems. There’s several layers of complexity that make the whole thing very gray…
[/quote]

Quite so – and it depends on the problem. ANd of course, the definitions of “right” and “left” vary by country. But economic de-regulation, trade liberalization and lower taxes, combined with a strong commitment to the rule of law (this is where Russia failed so miserably) seem to do a good job of promoting strong economic growth.

[quote]hspder wrote:
makkun wrote:
Some people argue that Thatcher with her radical labour market reforms in the early 80ies laid the groundwork for Britains success now - based on deregulated employment markets and economic liberalism (not to in the American sense, mind you). Germany is doing these now - and it does not at all go down well with Schroeder’s social-democrat constituency.

True. Deregulated employment markets tend to have a very immediate and tangible benefit, and many companies tend to levitate towards countries that have them. However, I don’t believe that is the only thing that benefitted the UK’s (and Ireland’s, for that matter) economy – history, language and culture clearly play a huge part, and they all boil down to the fact that, even though the UK and Ireland have the EU as their biggest business partner, they are, for historic reasons, the gateways of Europe to the rest of the world; specifically, the UK has strong historical ties with India, China (through Hong Kong) and, of course, the US, that make it a natural hub of business in Europe.

Even the UK and Ireland’s entertainment industry plays a big part in their economic success – and don’t tell me Thatcher had any part in that too.

A much easier argument is made for the opposite: as the Conservatives were voted out of the UK’s government, the UK’s economy was in pretty bad shape, with terrible unemployment and GDP growth numbers; if it was Thatcher’s Conservatives were so great, why did things improve exponentially after Blair was elected?

Germany will be an even more interesting case; I’ll be curious to see if Schroder is indeed able to deregulate the job market, and if he is, how successful he will be. My political beliefs tell me it’s a very bad idea, as does my experience – fear of losing one’s job might be a powerful motivator (and the Germans do need motivation), but it’s many times a self-defeating one (and one I could NEVER cope with, hence my choice to go back to an academic career): the country might get productivity gains, but it breeds a whole new set of social problems that may let Germany end up in a worse place than it is already.

The really bad thing is that it might even work for the short term, but have catastrophic results (to Germany’s quality of life) in the long term.

This is one of the situations that I actually hope I’m wrong. I’d like nothing better than to see Germany – and Europe as a whole – come back as an economic force to be reckoned with.
[/quote]

The “lack of quality of life for the long term” is problematic. Either the analysis is only from the perspective of a person lucky enough to get a regulated job (high unemployment is a plague to these regulated economies) or the fact that the welfare state can’t be sustained are ignored in this.

BTW, I think Europe can come back as an economic force – they just have to move away from the French economic model for the EU and toward the British version ( I don’t think they would use the U.S. as a model). Free trade will give them benefits irrespective of what else they do – the question is how “what else they do” will affect their overall economic picture.

[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Europe is also making the disenchanting journey from social democracy, but via a different route. Its elites had not foreseen that a virtually unchecked Muslim immigration might hijack the welfare state and poison the postwar culture of relative tolerance that supported its politics. To the contrary, Europe’s leftist elites lulled the electorates into a false feeling of security that the new arrivals were simply doing the work that unprecedented low European birth rates were leaving undone. No social or cultural costs were to be incurred. Transaction closed. Well, it was not quite so simple. And, while the workforce still needs more workers, the economies of Europe have been dragged down by social guarantees to large families who do not always have a wage-earner in the house. So, even in the morally self-satisfied Scandinavian and Low Countries, the assuring left-wing bromides are no longer believed.

I’m going to focus on the above part, because it is possibly the one that most blatantly shows the ignorance and bias of the author (the rest is more cleverly hidden behind biased views).

The “virtually unchecked Muslim immigration” happened not only in the more left-wing countries in Europe, while they had left-wing countries, but also during the watch of conservative parties. For example, Germany had a conservative government (CDU, which are Christian Conservatives) for several decades before the current (center-left) one. Remember Helmut Kohl? Large guy, big friend of Ronald Reagan? Not only literally millions of muslims immigrated into Germany on his watch, he was also very much responsible for the dramatic blunder that was the reunification process with East Germany.

I am a liberal, and I know perfectly the impact that the 10% of muslim population in Central and Northern Europe has – I lived there, and I saw with my own eyes the dramatic cultural clashes it causes. Only somebody completely ignorant of European History can blame the “invasion of muslims” on liberals, or in the fact that liberals were the only ones saying it would be of no consequence. There were plenty of conservative governments in Europe for the last 50 years that did nothing to stop it.

On the contrary: in many countries right-wingers were the ones that avidly supported the whole inflow of cheap labor. It was NOT the “leftist elites” that said there would be no problem. It was the capitalist right, who thought the cheap labor would allow them to have a leverage against the unions.

The proof is not only in Germany: a couple of years ago, when the Netherlands shifted right, things did not improve. The new right-wing government did NOTHING to improve the situation, or to stop the inflow of muslims. The inflow has, in fact, increased.

It has actually been the liberals that have been more vocal against the attitudes of the muslims. Theo van Gogh, a liberal, anti-religious Dutch filmaker, great-great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, brother of the famous painter Vincent van Gogh, made last year a movie (called “Submission”) that clearly attacked the muslim culture and specifically the way it treats women (Submission: Part I (TV Short 2004) - IMDb). Shortly after the film was shown on Dutch TV, he was stabbed by a fundamentalist muslim for it, in Amsterdam. Under the watch of a right-wing government.

The funny thing is that the US has the exact same immigration “problem” – in the very near future, the biggest ethnic group in this country will be latinos – it’s just that we get a different mix… Having a couple of Oceans between the US and the Middle East does present some “advantages”. Europe doesn’t have that geographical advantage – as proven over 1300 years ago when it was invaded by the Moors (http://www.sonhex.dk/under.htm).

So, until conservatives are able to present an actual solution to the immigration issue, and have some results, I’d suggest they stop blaming it on the liberals. It just makes conservatives look ignorant.

Oh, and talking about ignorant: if Europe is “making the disenchanting journey from social democracy”, why did the left have dramatic wins in the last two large elections in Western European countries (which were in Portugal – where a mind-boggling-never-before-seen 70% of the mandates went to the left – and Spain, which put a leftist new government in place to replace the US-friendly center-right Aznar)?

The only countries in Europe, in fact, that are voting right these days are the old “Eastern Block” countries, that are still very much enchanted by the great promises that were given by the new right. Let’s see how long that lasts…

[/quote]

I forgot I wanted to comment on the immigration matter. It’s kind of an interesting matter politically in the U.S., because the “elites” of both parties tend to favor immigration, while the base tends to question its value.

I think it’s really a matter of economics. People with less education are more affected by the type of immigration we’re talking about here – large scale unskilled immigration.

Of course, analysis becomes more complicated when one adds the national security element to the story – we need to control our borders. I don’t know how much of Europe’s immigration is illegal, but they need to control theirs too, and their threat is more immediate in terms of importing fundamentalist, anti-western people.

The question that tends to divide the parties on the upper levels is assimilation of immigrants. The whole “salad bowl” vs. “melting pot” debate among the academics (though really, among academics there isn’t much debate). I think it’s fair to say Republicans are much more in favor of assimilation, while Democrats generally favor “salad bowl.”

In short, I don’t agree with the author – never said I did agree with all his points. It’s just an interesting piece, and it shows the perspective of a Democrat disillusioned with his current view of his party.