rather because a time of Rationalism similar to the Enlightenment is about to begin
Perhaps then you should sub-title your diary "Is Rationalism Born?"?
I do help you hope so. From where I'm sitting, my impression remains that an opposite trend is dominant in important European countries - a slow slide into increasing polarities and divisive politics fed by increasing populist tendencies. This includes France, Italy, Netherlands, UK, Spain - whereby Sarkozy and Blair have played significant destructive roles. Anything Bill Clinton may have done was annihilated under Bush's ideologies.
Most of the daily topics we read in the Salon are sorrily embattled by populist rhetoric and all too often overshadowed by the ideological fluff of economic hoopla.
Bush was brought by 9/11. An accident. Populism is brought by political correctness and the difficulty of passing a simplified message. I can assure you that Sarkozy actually believes all those things, accepts being proved wrong and the secret is to find a way to reach the people of all sensibilities, races, origins, levels of education.
Now, did any one else recently strike you as such ? :)
Really?
Dutch politics has had a long reputation of being pragmatic. This was likely partly facilitated because of the coalition structure that is necessary to form a working government. Whatever it may be, during the past decades Dutch government was unafraid to tackle ideological taboos - softdrugs, euthanasia, abortion, prostitution, gay marriage to name the more outstanding ones. The immigration and integration issues were underestimated, came at the surface during the late nineties and remain unresolved - which goes for most of Europe. As I've analysed somewhere else, the political centre in the Netherlands is actually on the decrease - giving way to populist movements of Geert Wilders (hard-right) and the Socialist Party (conservative hard-left). Both parties, but particularly the xenophobic Wilders, are characterised by exclusive and divisive policies. Currently the Dutch government is formed among others by a Christian bloc which has been for the past year eroding pragmatic policies (creep on drug policy, prostitution, euthanasia regulations) and pushing to strengthen their own ideological world-image (laws of blasphemy surreptitiously being hardened).
In other words, and given the reputation that the Netherlands have long paved ahead in pragmatic solutions to ideologically generated problems, I remain unconvinced of the thrust of your argument that world politics is on the brink of renouncing ideological policies and embracing pragmatic solutions. To the contrary. There's a long way to go.
Immigrant and religious issues in particular (the main causes for populist movements' revival) were approached badly, from a communitarian viewpoint, without thinking about how those communities' values go together, and where communitarian isolation leads.
I suspect the dutch case was less about true pragmatism, and more about experimenting libertarianism to the extreme.
And then, pragmatism alone isn't enough, IMO, and it fails in real-politik; it must be accompanied by rationalism and humanism and implemented by brilliant people. The idea of "hope" that transfigured America needed someone of the value of Obama. The French right needed Sarkozy's genius. I don't see who could replace them.
It follows that such approaches would need exceptional figures. But maybe they also stimulate their apparition. Because of Obama, maybe more Obamas will dare and make it through.
ValentinD:
Failure to reach pragmatic goals does not necessarily mean that the goals were wrong, but maybe approached with little competence.
Please point out where I wrote that the goals have failed? Granted, the existing policies are in themselves not flawless, used as strawmen by the christian parties, but the only way people found out about the holes was by executing them. The goals were regulating euthanasia, abortion, prostitution, legislating gay marriage, and the condoning of soft drugs. All of them work a lot better than the alternative.
Your argue for a rise of pragmatism - I counter that in the Netherlands the reverse trend is visible and what? You argue back that Dutch pragmatism was... not pragmatic and not successful?
Please. Try again, or at minimum show me how they aren't successful. Just claiming that they aren't is not sufficient.
This, for me, is on one hand explained by the 9/11 accident that brought the same kind of polarisation in the US; on the other hand, this issue is an example of how libertarian approaches fail.
You may see those issues you list as pragmatic policies, but you may also note that it is an enumeration of all the now famous civil rights that have become the Creed of the last 30 years. You may also see them as libertarian policies - ie, ideological.
Reclassifying them as purely "libertarian" is not convincing at all - let me stress, again, these policies have been hammered out between a range of political parties - since coalitions are the only way the Netherlands can be governed. But well, if you keep insisting, I suggest you quickly start changing the Wiki page on soft drugs policy in the Netherlands:
Drug policy of the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is a pragmatic policy.
Bold mine. And while you're at it, also brush up the policy on prostitution - which is based on the similar rational: harm reduction.
But that's not the biggest problem: you're simply beyond wrong if you want to pin this solely on the immigration/integration debate - it either shows how little you have been following political developments in the Netherlands the past 10-12 years, or, that you receive your information/news from filtered (ideologically tainted?) sources.
Following the two WWs and consequence of a rigid society, libertarianism imposed itself, along with the exaggerations and biases normal in this kind of situations. Or between two extremes, there is place for a more measured, less activist approach.
To return to the Netherlands (a country I'm deeply fond of - but don't ask me why): I would be more careful about raising political compromise to the rank of Pragmatism. (I often consult Wikipedia, but I hang to my critical thinking too)
As to the immigration debate, if you look at previous posts, it is you who seemed to consider it as the main reason for the recent political polarizations. I added that the causes seem to be 9/11 and the bad compromise about multiculturalim, which is quite far from being or even resembling a fruit of rationalism.
Anyway, we're talking past each other. I don't think there is any way forward in this debate if you persist in conflating "libertarian" with "pragmatic" when it suits you at the drop of a hat to frame policies as "ideological". I think it's intentionally shifting the goalposts.
At this point you will have to make abundantly clear to me what your vision is of pragmatic solutions for issues such as soft drugs policy, prostitution, euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, integration, etc. Perhaps you could additionally make clear: can't libertarian rational sometimes not be pragmatic?
Better use another dairy for that; this thread is full...
The idea that the Dutch Approach would be pragmatic and modern is fundamental in your argumentation. IMO, it is a compromise - as in: we seek common ground rather than the truth and the best solution. This may still be pragmatic, but it is no longer automatically so.
My second thought: those compromises were made in a libertarianism-impregnated society, hence heavily influenced by ideology, starting with the postulate that it is wrong to forbid, to limit, to punish; that effort, constraint, traditional principles, are basically wrong (broadly speaking). That was not an independent thinking framework. For a long time now intellectual elites progagate libertarian positions, the civil rights idea always there (who can oppose a right, right), the modern thing to be, bashing when a majority dares to go against the current, framing as bigot, or dictatorial anyone daring to think differently. This is just political correctness. Democratical vote should be accepted, even if it doesn't arrange one side. That's the essence of democracy, not insulting the others as bigots, deluded, well, idiotic buttheads, really. We'll show'em, they can't stop the wave! This is not ok. Libertarianism is an ideology, as you can easily find, and like any other, it sometimes denies free speech (in this case, as obsolete, against-freedom, narrowminded, or simply stupid).
This doesn't mean we should return to a rigid society, but to more rational, mutually respectful attitudes. Wild exaggerations in order to win a point by fist-in-the-mouth postures always provoke a counter-reaction. It shouldn't necessarily be taken as lack of pragmatism.
