[Sim]

There is an article I came across. I don't think I agree with every point it says, but I think it may interest you as well. So I've translated it -- but there is one thing I have to explain first:

In Germany, the term "liberal" has never become synonymous with "left" or "progressive" and Germans who call themselves "liberal" see themselves in the tradition of classical liberalism, much like people in America who call themselves "libertarians".

But German liberals are very similar to American libertarians: Skepticism towards government and state, praise of individualism and individual freedom, free markets and Friedman/Hayek-style supply side economics. In Germany, there even exists a "liberal/libertarian party", the Free Democrats (FDP), which is currently #3 in the parliament and junior coalition partner in the center-right government of Chancellor Merkel (CDU).

That's why it's been difficult to translate the article -- in some cases, I translated the German term "liberal" with the English word "libertarianism", sometimes with the term "classic liberalism". Please keep that in mind when reading the article.

Another difficulty posed the translation of the German terms "bürgerlich" vs. "bourgeois", the former with a neutral connotation, the latter slightly derogative. I've translated it with the words "civic" vs. "bourgeois".


Ok, here is it:

-------------------

Political and Mental Emptiness

The [libertarian] FDP is in a crisis, the party leadership commits many mistakes. So it's plausible to think these mistakes are the reason for the crisis, and that the crisis will end as soon as the mistakes are no longer committed. (...)

Something else should be plausibly explained here: That libertarianism in general is in a mental-political, but also a moral crisis; and that the manner the FDP currently handles its libertarianism will result in strategic mistakes time and again.

Trust in the individual, skepticism towards the state, freedom before security, those are the still valid slogans that describe what has been uniting classically liberal-thinking people for more than two centuries. Classic liberalism, which is often forgotten, is indeed a big thing. But those who think like that must be rather shaken up by the last ten years.

With the internet, a second, virtual world of increasing importance has been created, in which the free actions of individuals have caused mass anarchy, the lawful state does not really exist here, it just goes on patrol occasionally. At the same time, powerful oligopolies are forming with Google or Apple. Their capacity to spy on and observe people, to patronize and to manipulate, has become bigger already than that of states, at least that of democratic states. Civic rights like copyrights are trampled upon.

With the climatic disaster, a topic has gained existential importance which cannot be grasped with ordinary patterns of libertarian thought. Warming of the atmosphere is obviously not the result of excessive government action, but -- on the contrary -- an unwanted side-effect of individual consumption and economic behavior. And this threat can hardly be solved without a "more" of government action and steering by the state.

A deregulated, free, global financial market has pulled the world from one hour to the next close to economic disaster. Only with extreme effort by governments of the fortunately still sufficiently strong states, the catastrophe could be prevented.

These three crisises, we might add international terrorism, have two things in common. First, they are not the result of state or government action, but of hardly controlled individual action. Second: They can only be countered with an increase of state power.

That doesn't mean classic liberalism or libertarianism has been disproven, or doesn't belong into our time. That is because especially state power that has to expand will often do that in a wrong way and in the wrong places. And it can hardly be denied that the state always runs the risk of becoming too big and inefficient. Still it must be deeply disturbing for libertarianism that today -- at least within the democratic republics --, more threats emerge from individual action than from government regulations of individual freedom.

Classic liberalism in Europe has always seen itself as an opposition to an etatist-oriented majority. That's where the continously rebellic tone stems from, which for example Margaret Thatcher never managed to lay off during her long years in power. From this kind of thought also stems Ralf Dahrendorfs famous dictum of "the end of the social-democratic century". He didn't see that on the world scale, the second half of the 20th century was rather a victory parade of classic liberalism and libertarianism. The names Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Tony Blair and, less strongly, Gerhard Schröder stand for less state, at least for a less of the welfare state.

But the 21st century will hardly belong to classic liberalism again. It will rather have to deal with the consequences of these victories, have to fence them in and to heal them.

Of course the libertarian FDP doesn't need to see it that way, when we constate the end of a libertarian century these years. Its mental-political crisis is because it seems completely unaffected of all that. Instead of becoming the arena for debating the inherent contradictions of libertarian thought, the FDP treats classic liberalism like an ideology that's always right, but just has to be applied to reality every time again. If not even reality has to be applied to the theory.

Like that, the FDP runs the risk of distancing itself increasingly from reality and the majority. While more and more people have the -- maybe exaggerated -- feeling that the state could be their last saveguard, the FDP still considers it the biggest threat. Calls for tax cuts are the loud signal that continuously reminds of the difference between the libertarians and the 85% who did not vote for them.

But regardless what happens, the FDP always evokes the impression to have all the answers already, while all others are still contemplating. Usually, the answer is: tax cuts, often: less state. Now we realize that's not enough to be part of the government. (...)

Why does nobody connect the FDP to the demand, a lawful, constitutional state has to be defended within the internet as well?

Why does parliamentary floor leader Homburger demand that some families should receive coupons instead of welfare handouts -- and extreme patronization by the state?

Here, another dimension of the mental-political crisis of the libertarian FDP becomes visible. Because individual freedom encounters less and less limits these days (at least in the democratic republics), because it's mobile, because it neither encounters spatial or moral barriers in the net, because institutions like churches or the parties, but also the media lose authority, a libertarianism that bursts barriers increasingly gets in conflict with civic thought, which appreciates modesty, measuredness and centeredness, which loves tradition and formalities.

That why a modern classically liberal party should step in against the excesses of classic liberalism in the name of civic thought. If it doesn't do that, then libertarianism will stroll around and look for other, shallow illusions of safety. Islamophobia and xenophobia for example. It's a symptom of the lack of intellectual depth of the libertarian FDP, when it doesn't care that in the Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria, libertarian-leaning parties become catchment bassins for prejudices. (...) Jürgen W. Möllemann [former FDP politician who played with anti-Semitism] has demonstrated the potential for seduction of irritated libertarians by right-wing populism.

When today's libertarianism has to struggle with severe inner contradictions, but the FDP treats it as a completely conclusive ideology, then this party becomes resistant to a learning process. It will insist on tax cuts no matter the cost, because it believes to be only credible when clinging to something, not when having a healthy debate or even changing its mind. On its current crisis, the desperately decisive leadership reacts by promising to continue the current course -- just "quicker" and "harder". The libertarians have reached a dead stop.

And because they cannot explain their crisis, the libertarians accuse the media, which allegedly treats them unfairly. This wouldn't even get the libertarians further if it was true. Because they surely cannot change the media.

Apparently, the leadership is not aware why the FDP is under special scrutiny by the media. But it's really simple: The libertarians are pending between two political goals: Bourgeoiseness for everybody, that's one goal; everything for the bourgeoisie, that's the other. If the FDP is civic or bourgeois, if it's classically liberal or a clientele party, that's often hard to recognize and thus under special scrutiny. (...)

Similar as the Westerwelle-FDP does the Green Party behave, which handles its environmentalism like the FDP handles its libertarianism. But sustainability is a historically younger thought, which has not won a victory yet and which has not been trapped yet within its inherent contradictions. In a manner of speaking, green ideology has not progressed far enough yet. That's why the Green Party appears fresher and younger, although its leadership isn't anymore.

The libertarian FDP will in the future, even when they don't like it, be in a political and mental competition with the Green Party -- also for the affection of the [conservative] CDU. In its current state, it will not be able to win this battle.

------------------

Here you find the original article: source

What do you think? Does it apply to American libertarians as well, and not just on the German party FDP?