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

Having thus set up this existential choice in terms that are uncannily reminiscent of 21st-century anti-capitalist campaigners, Fried then focuses on Germany. He sees Germany as the heart of a divided Europe, while Germany itself is in turn divided between a capitalist West and an agrarian East, with Berlin as a capitalist "enclave". Germany, as one of the debtor nations, is destined to take its place in the "world in revolt": "In the coming clash of civilisations, Germany, as the country most exposed to the impact of Western ideas, has been assigned the most important task, perhaps even the leading role." 

Anyone who has studied the writings and speeches of anti-Western leaders such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, of leftist and environmentalist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein, but above all of Osama bin Laden and his fellow Islamists, will recognise these sentiments of Ferdinand Fried. Germany no longer has such an exalted role in the anti-Western camp, whose leadership has numerous other claimants today. 

Capitalism, now as then, is an integral part of the Western civilisation. For friends and foes of that civilisation, the Judaeo-Christian and Enlightenment traditions that enabled capitalism to emerge are part of a seamless whole, a complex of natural and man-made law, of virtues and values without which a market economy cannot function. More important even than the rule of law or representative democracy, however, is the idea of an open society, a public square, in which freedom of speech and of the press are guaranteed. It is this freedom of access to the realm of public opinion that enables Western societies to criticise and correct their faults. The marketplace of ideas and opinions makes possible the marketplace of goods and services. Where the former is lacking, the latter is defective. Conformism, repression and corruption go hand in hand, as we see under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes everywhere. Mises thought illiberal ideologies were the political equivalents of neuroses in psychoanalysis: pathological compulsions that enabled the neurotic to live a lie, eine Lebenslüge, shielding him from reality in a bizarre comfort-zone where fear and loathing replace love and security. Even if we do not share the very Viennese faith in Freud of Mises, we may agree that those who hate Western civilisation, and especially those who are its products, suffer from profoundly masochistic guilt complexes that are immune from rationality. And we may also accept that it is healthy for the neurotic to be exposed to reality, by whatever means. Those who represent our politics and culture need to be given a regular reality check, however unwelcome this may be.

How well is the public sphere in Germany functioning? Consider, first, the case of Thilo Sarrazin. Just because his book Deutschland schafft sich ab ("Germany is abolishing itself") and the subsequent controversy have become so notorious, we should not assume that this outcome was inevitable. As long ago as 1999, Peter Hitchens, a prominent English journalist, published an indictment of Tony Blair's "cultural revolution" with an almost identical title: The Abolition of Britain (Quartet). Rather than generate a nationwide debate, however, the book was met with almost total silence. Last year, he updated it under the new title The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost its Way (Continuum). Once again, the book was killed by silence. 

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.