On the other hand polls show that the majority of Germans right now seem to prefer a grand coalition. The grand coaltion between SPD/CDU is seen as the the coalition of losers and Bahr warns that it would make any bring ANY reform policies to an end, both parties deadlocked with each other.
In addition he warns that if a grand coalition that can't achieve any reform policies whatsoever it leads to an increase int the radicalisation on the left and the right. If the far-right has lost in numbers, it seems to be because the far-left has absorbed them. You mention this as if it were a great relief, but basically it just shows that far right and far left any time can sit in the same boat and one can't just be relieved about it, because it's a transfer from the far right to the far left.
How does it work to govern with a Red/Green minority under Schroeder? Egon Bahr says majorities would have to be build on a case by case basis, so these then would lead most likely to more hot policy debates in the Bundestags, which wouldn't hurt, IMO.
Driving voters to the margins is also not really a convincing argument in the current situation, IMO. A grand coalition means Greens and FDP both in the opposition, so they'd absorb a huge chunk out of those protest voters. The Linke would definitely benefit as well though. But, to be frank, that doesn't bother me too much. I don't consider the Linke an extremist party - I consider it an establishment party with an extremely populist attitude.
I would prefer a traffic-lights coalition over a grand coalition, because I consider it more democratic, and, frankly, because it would keep the Greens in power - and I happen to think they're good for the country. But, as I've been saying over and over again, traffic lights and Jamaica are implausible options - I don't see the two small parties agree to either deal.
As for a red-green minority government with the backing of the Linke - no way in hell. Both SPD and CDU/CSU have created the expectation that dealing with the PDS and now the Linke on the federal level is taboo. Of course this is ridiculously hypocritical, since the SPD is actually allied with the Linke in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and if I not mistaken there is at least some amount of cooperation between Linke and CDU on the local level. Nevertheless, b/c of those artificial expectations, breaking the taboo of making a deal with the Linke on the federal level would bear a hefty price.
Besides, such a configuration makes no sense for either Linke or SPD. After all they split up over Schroeder's neoliberal reforms, and it was the Linke's opposition to those reforms that garnered them the success they had in yesterday's elections. How could they possibly now turn around and reelect Schroeder and then help him carry on with precisely those reforms they've vowed to stop and reverse? It makes no sense whatsoever. If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)
Now, please understand that I'm not saying these reforms are without merit. What I and many others found appalling was how Schroeder's government in the face of crisis turned around and did exactly what it had blasted their conservative predecessors for trying to do, without any attempt at damping the economic and psychological blow to the poor and unemployed and without any attempt at finding a "third way" between Keynsian (read, more or less, traditional social-democratic, comparable to the New Deal under FDR) and neoliberal policies. If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)
If I can quote from a friend who lives in Germany...
"The truth is, ever since reunification, German industrialists have whinged incessantly about how inflexible, pampered and downright lazy German workers are, particularly those in the east. They have urged them to do their patriotic duty and to be flexible, to lower their expectations and to damned well be grateful if someone deigns to give them a job in spite of all their obvious shortcomings.
In return, they have refused to invest in Germany, have shifted their production elsewhere, have whinged and bitched and extracted concession after concession, and then whinged and bitched that it still hasn't been enough.
Here's an example: every year we get the same story about farmers in Brandenburg being unable to find German workers to harvest asparagus, so they have to get people in from Poland, who are glad to do it. What they don't mention is that they pay about 3 Euros an hour. In Poland, the cost of living is a fraction of what it is in Germany, so you can't blame Polish workers for doing it. Equally, you can't blame Germans for not doing it. Nevertheless, every spring you hear the same story about what lazy bastards the Germans are.
All this "sick man of Europe" stuff is a con. Germany still exports more than any other country in Europe. The problem is that it is (or, increasingly, was) based on a system of "capitalism with a human face", for want of a better expression. And the bookies, con-men and bullshitters who run the Anglo-Saxon economies, as well as their would-be equivalents here, can't be having that. Musings on life in Romania and beyond
Libertarianism, in its purest theoretical form, takes the idea of liberalism to its individualist extreme, making the abolition of all authority (especially state authority) the ideal. But in practice, most libertarians will focus on economic 'rights' (mostly ownership rights), and in my experience most would favor a quite militant rump State: one focusing on police (mostly against immigrants...) and wars. (But anti-war libertarians are very strongy against that too.)
Neoliberalism, which started with just the one Milton Friedman our libertarian troll keeps giving links on, doesn't differ that much in its desired utopistic end state from the libertarian 'practical' state - but the difference is in the way to achieve it. Neoliberalism thinks economic 'freedoms' should come first - and to achieve that, the (dictatoral) powers of the State can be used. (Friedman and cohorts of the Chicago school took this quite literally: they were flown in to act as economic advisors for military dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile, shortly after the CIA-sponsored coup.)
Again in practice, neoliberalism boils down to much less, especially freedom-wise: the economic 'freedoms' created are the freedoms of entrepreneurs and investors, while the freedoms of others are curtained. The neoliberal policies are to constrain workers' rights, lower taxes for economic activity, privatise state holdings and services, and to seek to find a market-based solution to every problem (with emphasis on stock markets).
Now, whether this is right-from-the-centre or centrist etc., depends on the actual makeup of the political landscape in a country. In the USA, given that the DLC subscribes to it while both the neocons and part of the paleocons in the Republican Party are more extreme, this may actually be left-of-centre... in Germany, all parties except the Left Party adopted elements of it to varying degrees since 1998, so it may count as right-of-centre to centre. In South America, it increasingly looks like turning into a centre-right to far-right position. I'd hope it will turn that in Europe too (and lost hope that it could in the USA anytime soon). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
1. theoretical form
(a) The libertarian party is a down-to-earth political party, rathrer than an academic institution engaged in abstract ideas. Further, it has practical solutions, not theorical essays.
(b) the abolition of all authority (especially state authority) the ideal. Nobody calls for "abolition" of the state. In fact, the state is vital, important and must play its role. However, the state is small and infringes as little as possible to an individual's rights and freedoms.
2. Neoliberalism, which started with just the one Milton Friedman
(a) If you mean "neoliberalims" as libertarian economic theory, then you are mistaken. Libertarian economic theory started with and/or include Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Ludwid von Mises (Austria), F. Hayek (Austria), Bastiat (French), etc. (b) Milton Friedman's name is prominent, in part, because (i) he is a Nobel-Prize winner, (ii) he was Ronald Reagan's economic adviser.
(c) In 10 years, starting from 1973, Chile abolished the minimum wage, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and abolished tax on wealth and profits. As a result, you had a very large middle class, compared to other Latin American nations. As a result, when people get economic rights, they also demand political rights, which they eventually got. However, Pinochet did not fully implement the libertarian plan.
(In fact, John F. Kennedy (Dem), and Ronald Reagan (Rep) both cut income taxes, as a way to stimulate the economy, create more jobs, raise the standard of living. I doubt Kennedy was right-wing.)
(d) Chileans have a choice to invest in their pension plans, and their pension plans are 141 times sounder that the German pension system (or 23 times more than American system). Instead of government run investment system (Social Security gives you 1-2% return - hahaha -funny and sad), they use a private-investment run system (so much better).
(e) Chile has free trade with a few countries, esp. with the USA. That rises the standard of living of the Chileans, esp. the poor. Chile is in top 10-20 economically developed and/or economically competitive and/or economically free nations.
(f) Chile is # 11 in the economic Freedom Index. Germany is # 18. France is # 44
(g) You somehow blamed Gen. Pinochet. China also follows some libertarian principles. Should we blame China or the Communist authoritarian bloody regime for doing that?
5. Again, you try to divide political spectrum into a 2-dimension - Left and right. (a) There are no libertarian parties in Europe, so your analysis is not sound. (b) The libertarian party calls for legalization of (i) drugs (ii) prostitution (iii) homosexual marriage (overall, because there is a dispute about that in the party though and its also an obscure issue, when the state's rights are diminished) (iv) open borders and more immigraton (yet you talk about xenophobia)
--- The rationale is that the state should not be involved in such matters, but rather the adult and consenting individuals should make these decisions.
None of these positions are right or far right or extreme right or right of the center or right-of-Venus or right-of-Mars. (c) There is one libertarian in the US Cogress, Ron Paul, who is also a Republican (d) There is a Libertarian Caucus in the Rep. Party and the Dem. Party.
6. CLARITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AGREEMENT.
You think the best way to provide jobs, to increase the standard of living, to stimulate the economy is through the state and the bureaucrats. *There are millions of people who think like you). I think, the free market and the individuals are better at it. That's it.
None of these positions are right or far right or extreme right or right of the center or right-of-Venus or right-of-Mars.
(b) The prior post erroneoulsy argued that the "Libertarians are right or right-of-the-center or far-right" or whatever the label you want to use. I pointed out that the Libertarians and the liberals or the Left share the following positions - legalization of drugs, prostitution, homosexual marriage, or open borders and more immigraton. These are not right wing positions by any stretch of imagination.
2. I apologize, but I didn't follow your point.
(a) How does advocating the legalization of drugs, prostitution, homosexual marriage, or open borders and more immigraton "allow extreme righteous and racist policies to flourish?" Can you give several specific examples?
(b) The same reasoning will say that "The Left allows extreme righteous and racist policies to flourish."
For example, in a thread on education in a global comparison, he posted the usual crap about bad public schools in the USA: a US leftie would have to point out that public schools weren't always as run-down as now and that the present situation is a result of underfunding and the creationists' march through schoolboards, but for a European in countries with working and strong public school systems and Scandinavian countries as the example to follow it's just so absurd it's not even worth to ridicule. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Depends on what "know the US political spectrum of parties well" means, I guess. Those who know it really well are obviously well aware.
I myself know American Libertarianism, like you, only from debates with US libertarians on the web. They were present on an international Usenet newsgroup I frequented then, but for some strange reason, "outed" themselves only with Bush's election in 2000. (The result was a permanent war in a previously harmonic forum.) I met several of this type on other forums since (be them the Guardian's forums or other blogs).
However, in the run-up to the Iraq war, I discovered the www.antiwar.com site, run by anti-war libertarians - who I must admit impressed me, even as our economic views differed. Via reading an anti-war libertarian blog, later I even discovered the Mutualist school of libertarians, who put emphasis on their rejection of corporatism too - some agreement with leftists on economic matters, from a quite different ideological basis!
But I suspect most Europeans haven't even heard of American Libertarianism, not to speak of confronting its representatives. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Second: I don't consider the Left Party far left, just hard left - in my book, far left would be fighting in the streets and calling for attacks on rich men, or for violent takeover of private property. (Lafontaine is another issue, but see my reply to Marek.)
Brainwave answered Bahr for the most part better than I could (and I enthusiastically agree with him on the Greens), I add one thing I was earlier reminded of by Saturday: a Red/Green minority government would still be blocked by a CDU/CSU-majority Bundesrat (second chamber of parliament, a check on the Bundestag like the US senate, but members are the delegates of the state governments). (Also, the President - a mostly ceremonial position in Germany, except in this point - could decide for new elections on his own, and deny this possibility altogether.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
