You are here:   Angela Merkel > The Frau is for Turning
 

That was not Sarrazin's fate, to put it mildly. The initial reaction to his book must have exceeded his wildest expectations: it sold a million copies in a matter of weeks. Clearly his critique of multiculturalism and the long-term impact of Islam found its mark. But then the politicians got involved. In particular, Chancellor Angela Merkel made it clear that Sarrazin's opinions were "unerwünscht": not merely mistaken but undesirable, even dangerous. The rest of the German establishment followed Frau Merkel's line. President Christian Wulff followed the procedures necessary to force Sarrazin to resign from his post on the board of the Bundesbank. Having sent out the signal that to criticise Islam would cost any public official his job, this same head of state attempted to draw a line under the affair when he declared: "Islam is part of Germany." Not only had Sarrazin lost his job, he had apparently lost the argument, too. In Standpoint, Karen Horn praised Sarrazin's courage in launching "a double debate which will benefit Western civilisation: one on the mishaps of integration, another on the road to serfdom down which our political class is leading us". 

Then, however, something unforeseen happened. Chancellor Merkel gave a speech to young Christian Democrats in which, to their astonishment, she admitted that "we lied to ourselves" about how successful the integration of the Turkish Muslims into German society had actually been. "The multicultural approach," she declared to enthusiastic applause, "has failed — utterly." This was pure Sarrazin. Suddenly, his "undesirable opinions" had been adopted by the German government — without acknowledgement, naturally. The echo his book had found in the electorate meant that his views could no longer be ignored and the petty spite of the political elite's punitive reaction had become indefensible. Public opinion had forced Frau Merkel to change course. This is how an open society is supposed to function. Germany has not abolished itself — yet.

How did Angela Merkel come to accept that she, her government and Germany had to change with the times? It is surely significant that she is an East German, the daughter of a Lutheran pastor and a teacher of English and Latin, who lived at different times on either side of the Iron Curtain. The young Angela grew up with first-hand experience of the difference, not only between the prosperity of the capitalist West and the poverty of the communist East, but between what Orwell called "the freedom to say that two plus two equals four" and a diabolical world in which reason itself is denied.

Far better than most Western leaders, Frau Merkel grasps why the West is now faced with a real threat to its survival from the moral and cultural relativism that underlies the multicultural approach to Muslim immigration. Another — now deeply unfashionable — leader who gets it is George W. Bush. In a recent interview, the former President told The Times: "One of the controversial things I happen to believe is that freedom is universal. I happen to believe there is an Almighty, which might make this statement even doubly controversial, but the gift of that Almighty is freedom. And there is a tinge of moral relativism in the world expressed by those who say: he is imposing his values. Well, I rest my case. They are not my values. They are universal values."

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
d_lon
December 18th, 2010
3:12 PM
"the market's self-correcting mechanisms have already gone a long way to restoring equilibrium. The main contribution that governments can make is to live within their means" The author to have conveniently forgotten the role of governments in retoring equilibrium by bailing out the banks.

S Fox
December 14th, 2010
7:12 PM
Very excellent article. Anonymous Nov 30, you remark that 'such universal principles can be identified without recourse to an almighty'. Perhaps so. But can they be upheld and defended with the ferocity and ardour that is necessary in a world such as this by pure reason? Please note, I am not religious. I have required fifty years of life to learn that those moral relativists you (and the author of this piece) write of are fools. Yet they are, or appear to be, highly intelligent and eloquent. Almost without exception, it now appears to me, to be a successful, sophisticated intellectual in the academic or media world means to be so wrong about what really matters as to constitute a danger to society. Fortunately, figures like Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan have arisen to defy the liberal, atheist consensus. Who can I thank if not G-d for their belief and commitment? I'm not sure where we'd be without it, but I am sure I don't want to go there.

Anonymous
December 4th, 2010
4:12 PM
If we tolerate the intolerant, we damage freedom and put it at risk, so obviously its not a contradiction.

Anonymous
November 30th, 2010
12:11 PM
What a magnificent article. Such breadth of vision and affirmation of principles that sorely need it in this nihilistic age of ours. My only objection is to the linking of 'universal values/freedoms' and belief in a deity. I happen to believe that such universal principles can be identified without recourse to an almighty - but in this context, these are quibbles. With our political, academic and media establishment either aiding and abetting Mises' enemies within, if they haven't joined that camp fully, it's a joy and relief to read an article like this one.

wam3
November 29th, 2010
5:11 PM
To "Anonymous," Nov. 26, 5:11 PM, I would respond that Western freedom generally has meant individual freedom. Thus there is not such a real contradiction between maintaining individual freedom and also keeping many Islamic practices illegal. This is because much of strict Islam severely restricts the individual--especially women and non-Muslims. And strict Islam does not allow for the separation of church and state. Sharia and individual freedom are incompatible. Also, the last sentence of Johnson's article answers your concern: "We cannot integrate those whose only purpose is the disintegration of our civilisation." Reason indicates that it is legitimate for countries such as the UK or the USA to act in self-defense, against those who would destroy the freedoms of their inhabitants.

Anonymous
November 26th, 2010
5:11 PM
It just seems fundamentally contradictory to hold freedom as a pinnacle of Western society, but then to say 'we cannot tolerate the intolerate'. The same argument can be used by the very people you criticise who are hostile to Thilo Sarrazin. I think it is obvious that Islamist Terrorism should not be tolerated in Western society, and we have laws which act to that accord. If you are speaking of people espousing general Islamic beliefs, the segregation of the sexes, arranged marriage, if these views cannot be tolerated, it seems to me that freedom is lost from Western society. However, I enjoyed the article and agree with much of what Sarrazin has to say.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.