American Conservatives: Your opinion of your European counterparts?

[Konig]

(If you dispute how I've defined American conservatism, please feel free to challenge my definition)

American Conservatism: Advocacy for small government, and by extension a deregulated economic system, with policies geared towards free trade, little regulation of the banking sector, and a relatively free market. At the same time, American conservatism supports the upholding and enforcing of socially conservative positions such as encouraging Christian morality in the public and private sphere. American conservatives oppose a strong federal government, and therefore support, in varying degrees, fiscal conservatism, regionalism and decentralization.

Now, European conservatism is a polar opposite in many respects. It is defined almost solely by its desire to protect its respective countries' cultures, traditions and values (while American conservatism is defined by its opposition to a large government). Therefore, it puts issues such as immigration at the centre of the ideological battleground with liberals. European conservatism rejects free trade as the epicentre of liberal thought, due to its tendency to erode local cultures and traditions, often at the expense of the average citizen, and therefore a mixed economy with a coordinated market system, as well as some form of public welfare and insurance, is the desired economic system for European conservatives. European conservatism sees liberalism as a danger to that which European civilization has built, namely its colossal and impressive traditions of art, music, literature, science and political institutions, while American conservatism sees liberalism as a threat to "freedom".

My question is this: American conservatives, what do you think of European conservatism?

 

[Goshin]

Mainly that labels, which are always dubious, do not translate well between different cultures.

 

[Konig]

Mainly that labels, which are always dubious, do not translate well between different cultures.

While I agree with you, I created this thread to try and get a better understanding of American conservatism and a clearer picture of how European conservatism is received in the U.S. It was bitterly received in the 1700s, that's obvious, but I'm curious as to how the view has evolved.

 

[Goshin]

While I agree with you, I created this thread to try and get a better understanding of American conservatism and a clearer picture of how European conservatism is received in the U.S. It was bitterly received in the 1700s, that's obvious, but I'm curious as to how the view has evolved.

The majority of Americans tend to be so Amero-centric that in all likelihood they have only the vaguest knowledge of how European conservatism or liberalism differs from the American version.

Among those who are aware, there are doubtless many differing views... I'll leave the individuals here to express that, as I do not actually identify as a conservative per-se.

 

[Respecthelect]

America invented free market capitalism, with the emphasis on "free." Europe has always balked and suffered for it. I prefer to look toward reducing the artificial weights we impose on our own race-horse of capitalism, rather than compare how Europe or Asia hobble their race-horses.

Not that we should ignore better ways of doing business, but your question implies European impediments, rather than improvements. China has avoided several of our welfare and entitlement problems for example. For a communist country, they chose individual accounts for retirement and health care, for example. Investing in the future, paying in advance, is far superior to our "pay as you go" or "pay for yesterday's retiree" plans America subscribes to.

.

 

[TeleKat]

(If you dispute how I've defined American conservatism, please feel free to challenge my definition)

American Conservatism: Advocacy for small government

Nope

policies geared towards free trade

Lol, nope.

relatively free market

American conservatives in no way, shape, or form support a free market.

American conservatism supports the upholding and enforcing of socially conservative positions such as encouraging Christian morality in the public and private sphere

Yes.

American conservatives oppose a strong federal government

Only when a Democrat is in charge.

 

[German guy]

I'd point out that there is no such thing as one "European conservatism".

And even the American right encompasses very different leanings (from compassionate social conservatives to socially progressive libertarians), although you might generalize it because they're more or less united under the umbrella of the Republican Party.

However, different European countries have different political and ideological traditions, as well as different electoral systems, so there is no such thing as an umbrella uniting very different kinds of ideologies right of the center.

Libertarian conservative, Christian democrat, market liberal, authoritarian or monarchist anti-republican conservatives, anti-Islam right-wing populists, anti-EU right-ring populists ... all of these ideologies exist in different European countries to a different extent, often in different parties who strongly oppose each other. So I guess you have to be more specific.

 

[TeleKat]

I'd point out that there is no such thing as one "European conservatism".

And even the American right encompasses very different leanings (from compassionate social conservatives to socially progressive libertarians), although you might generalize it because they're more or less united under the umbrella of the Republican Party.

However, different European countries have different political and ideological traditions, as well as different electoral systems, so there is no such thing as an umbrella uniting very different kinds of ideologies right of the center.

Libertarian conservative, Christian democrat, market liberal, authoritarian or monarchist anti-republican conservatives, anti-Islam right-wing populists, anti-EU right-ring populists ... all of these ideologies exist in different European countries to a different extent, often in different parties who strongly oppose each other. So I guess you have to be more specific.

Libertarian conservatism doesn't exist. You are either libertarian or you are conservative. The two ideas are polar opposites in every way.

 

[German guy]

Libertarian conservatism doesn't exist. You are either libertarian or you are conservative. The two ideas are polar opposites in every way.

Yes, in general, you are right, of course ... however, I used this term to distinguish a very popular brand of European right-of-center ideology (conservative on social issues, libertarian on economic issues) ... because simply "conservative" is not enough in the European context (there are actually social conservatives who are critical of capitalism and support mixed economy, such as Christian democrats).

 

[Respecthelect]

You are either libertarian or you are conservative. The two ideas are polar opposites in every way.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conservative. . . . . . . . Libertarian
Less government?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree
More freedom?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree
Dislike Obamacare?. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree
IRS persecute non-liberals?. . . . . . . . .No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . No
Lower taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree
Free to bear arms?. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree
Free Speech Zones?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No

Not such "polar opposites" after all?

.

 

[TeleKat]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conservative. . . . . . . . Libertarian
Less government?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree

Ha, that's funny.

More freedom?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree

Unless you're gay, want to smoke drugs, want an abortion, want to sell your body, want to not be drafted in the military, want to marry multiple people, etc.

Dislike Obamacare?. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree

Conservatives only dislike it because it has Obama's name in it. Conservatives were all too happy to vote for Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" was pretty much the blueprint for Obamacare.

Free Speech Zones?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No

Most liberals don't support that either. Your point?

IRS persecute non-liberals?. . . . . . . . .No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . No
Lower taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree
Free to bear arms?. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . .Agree

These are the only things we could say Libs and Cons agree on, and well Libertarianism is more than guns and low taxes hun.

Not such "polar opposites" after all?

How about I make my own list?

............................................Conservative........................................ ....Libertarian
End the Fed?...................................No...................................................Yes
Legalize all drugs?...........................No.....................................................Yes
End corporate subsidies?..................No......................................................Yes
Legalize gay marriage?....................No.......................................................Yes
End incorporation?..........................No.......................................................Yes
Legalize polygamy?.........................No.......................................................Yes
Free market?...........................Only In Rhetoric............................................Yes
Corporate bailouts?........................Yes........................................................No
Open borders?...............................No........................................................Yes
End wars/bring troops home?.........No...........................................................Yes

Shall I continue, or will this suffice?

 

[Del Zeppnile]

(If you dispute how I've defined American conservatism, please feel free to challenge my definition)

American Conservatism: Advocacy for small government, and by extension a deregulated economic system, with policies geared towards free trade, little regulation of the banking sector, and a relatively free market. At the same time, American conservatism supports the upholding and enforcing of socially conservative positions such as encouraging Christian morality in the public and private sphere. American conservatives oppose a strong federal government, and therefore support, in varying degrees, fiscal conservatism, regionalism and decentralization.

Now, European conservatism is a polar opposite in many respects. It is defined almost solely by its desire to protect its respective countries' cultures, traditions and values (while American conservatism is defined by its opposition to a large government). Therefore, it puts issues such as immigration at the centre of the ideological battleground with liberals. European conservatism rejects free trade as the epicentre of liberal thought, due to its tendency to erode local cultures and traditions, often at the expense of the average citizen, and therefore a mixed economy with a coordinated market system, as well as some form of public welfare and insurance, is the desired economic system for European conservatives. European conservatism sees liberalism as a danger to that which European civilization has built, namely its colossal and impressive traditions of art, music, literature, science and political institutions, while American conservatism sees liberalism as a threat to "freedom".

My question is this: American conservatives, what do you think of European conservatism?

Honestly, I don't believe that your labels describe American conservatism properly. It is not that simply stated.

 

[German guy]

How about I make my own list?

............................................Conservative........................................ ....Libertarian
End the Fed?...................................No...................................................Yes
Legalize all drugs?...........................No.....................................................Yes
End corporate subsidies?..................No......................................................Yes
Legalize gay marriage?....................No.......................................................Yes
End incorporation?..........................No.......................................................Yes
Legalize polygamy?.........................No.......................................................Yes
Free market?...........................Only In Rhetoric............................................Yes
Corporate bailouts?........................Yes........................................................No
Open borders?...............................No........................................................Yes
End wars/bring troops home?.........No...........................................................Yes

Shall I continue, or will this suffice?

I'm not libertarian myself, but there is one thing I give American libertarians: They're coherent.

Too many conservatives, on the other side, use many rhetorics that are contradictory. Like "conservatives are in favor of small government". Oh yes? Since when is a huge bloated army not part of the government? Or since when is eroding checks on the executive not "big government"? Or support of huge executive and secret service excesses in the name of "national security"? Exactly.

Conservatives and liberals both want big government. But as a libertarian friend of mine put it, liberals want a "nanny state", pampering the people, while conservatives want a "daddy state", telling you how to behave and to protect you -- both patronize you equally.

Now as I said, I'm not a libertarian myself, as I believe there are good reasons for certain government actions, but I totally respect a coherent libertarian stance. That's better than fooling yourself with rhetorics.

 

[Fiddytree]

I'm much more inclined with big government conservatism with aspects of noblesse oblige, so I probably wouldn't be too out of whack in that regard. We have different policies we would advocate, but I think in terms of orientation, I would be hard pressed to really truly disagree.

 

[Fiddytree]

Libertarian conservatism doesn't exist. You are either libertarian or you are conservative. The two ideas are polar opposites in every way.

Fusionism was a very real phenomenon. It went away perhaps 20 years ago, but you can't just swipe it away.

 

[MAGAnificent]

(If you dispute how I've defined American conservatism, please feel free to challenge my definition)

American Conservatism: Advocacy for small government, and by extension a deregulated economic system, with policies geared towards free trade, little regulation of the banking sector, and a relatively free market. At the same time, American conservatism supports the upholding and enforcing of socially conservative positions such as encouraging Christian morality in the public and private sphere. American conservatives oppose a strong federal government, and therefore support, in varying degrees, fiscal conservatism, regionalism and decentralization.

Now, European conservatism is a polar opposite in many respects. It is defined almost solely by its desire to protect its respective countries' cultures, traditions and values (while American conservatism is defined by its opposition to a large government). Therefore, it puts issues such as immigration at the centre of the ideological battleground with liberals. European conservatism rejects free trade as the epicentre of liberal thought, due to its tendency to erode local cultures and traditions, often at the expense of the average citizen, and therefore a mixed economy with a coordinated market system, as well as some form of public welfare and insurance, is the desired economic system for European conservatives. European conservatism sees liberalism as a danger to that which European civilization has built, namely its colossal and impressive traditions of art, music, literature, science and political institutions, while American conservatism sees liberalism as a threat to "freedom".

My question is this: American conservatives, what do you think of European conservatism?

My opinion is that European conservatism.....at least in Western Europe is non-existent. By American standards Western European voters are only given the choice of Leftwing and Leftwing-lite.

 

[RiverDad]

Now, European conservatism is a polar opposite in many respects. It is defined almost solely by its desire to protect its respective countries' cultures, traditions and values (while American conservatism is defined by its opposition to a large government). Therefore, it puts issues such as immigration at the centre of the ideological battleground with liberals. European conservatism rejects free trade as the epicentre of liberal thought, due to its tendency to erode local cultures and traditions, often at the expense of the average citizen, and therefore a mixed economy with a coordinated market system, as well as some form of public welfare and insurance, is the desired economic system for European conservatives. European conservatism sees liberalism as a danger to that which European civilization has built, namely its colossal and impressive traditions of art, music, literature, science and political institutions, while American conservatism sees liberalism as a threat to "freedom".

My question is this: American conservatives, what do you think of European conservatism?

I believe that there is an inherent contradiction brewing within that definition and it revolves around the bolded section.

That mixed economy and the support for social insurance never really took root in the United States because the US never really had the tight cohesive culture found in the Nordic countries nor in Western Europe. Europe was where most Americans came from, so we share the same cultural traditions and insights. America saw a lot of cooperatives and mutual insurance enterprises, so the idea of helping each other out in times of need is not alien to Americans. What Europe has and America doesn't is a society where those who contribute to these social insurance schemes SEE that the beneficiaries are just like them, they know that "but for the grace of God there go I" and so it makes sense to contribute. In America we see a different beneficiary class and that "there but for the grace of God go I" sentiment is seriously eroded by the evidence of our own lives and those in our social milieu.

As European conservatives fight against their traitorous liberals in order to keep a people together, there is a lot of conservative policy which is dependent on the conservatives coming out victorious in that battle. If the people become fractured, then the legitimacy of the social insurance enterprise becomes seriously damaged. Will European conservatives really fight to maintain that social insurance network if most of the benefits flow to other people? I doubt it.

I find it entirely plausible that the nature of European conservatism will migrate towards the American definition as the demographic characteristics of Europe begin to resemble those of America. What is there in Europe to conserve if it's all been lost to the ravaging liberal hordes? All that's left is individualism, to try to pry yourself apart from the collective which looks upon you like the human batteries in the Matrix films.

 

[APACHERAT]

[My question is this: American conservatives, what do you think of European conservatism?

British conservatives or Russian conservatives ?

 

[StringBean]

American conservatism is and always has been rooted in a fundamental distrust of government.

I think when comparing it to European flavors, this central distinction is critical. Note that the flag-waving fascist waves that overtook Europe would never have happened across the pond. American conservatives love their country, but they love their land and themselves first and foremost.

With regard to legislating morality, this is where you divide up the conservatives between "conservatives" and "libertarians."

 

[German guy]

Maybe it's helpful when I give an example of a European political landscape. So I'll choose the one I'm most familiar with, that of Germany:

Traditional German conservatism (pre-1933) was statist, authoritarian and anti-liberal. What Americans call "conservatism" was actually called "liberalism" and clearly left of this traditional, monarchist-nationalistic German conservatism. For these conservatives, the entire American ideology of freedom, equality and constitution born in the American revolution was basically "communism's little brother -- making people equal although they aren't and shouldn't be". All the mess started with enlightenment, the French and American revolutions -- from then on, all Western history went down the hill. Representation, constitution and individualism were signs of decadence that would eventually destroy culture and civilization. The major proponents of that kind of conservatism were nobles and aristocrats, and with their vanishing importance in society, it lost influence too.

That brand of anti-liberal (liberal as in "classical liberalism") conservatism is more or less extinct in Germany since 1945, discredited along with Nazism, yet you still find some remains of it in certain circles.

A bit closer to the center, the German right was basically represented by two major ideologies: Right-wing liberalism and Christian democracy until 1933. Right-wing liberalism was the "conservative" ideology that most closely resembled what Americans would call "conservative": More economic freedom from the state, but socially conservative. These "National Liberals" were the party of enterprisers, factory owners and the "bourgeoisie".

Christian democracy, represented by the Centrist Party, was the ideology of Catholic Christians: Born as a response to the "social question" and the rise of socialism in the 19th century, as well as against attempts of the Protestant monarchy to curb the power of the Catholic church, it's maybe what Americans might call "compassionate conservatism". Conservative on social issues, but critical of capitalism and in favor of certain social programs in favor of the socially disadvantaged. Christian democrats justified such social programs with Christian values of compassion and Catholic social teachings.

So you have already 3 different brands of "conservative" ideology in Germany pre-1933. An important distinction was their stance on representative democracy (like the Weimar Republic): The monarchist conservatives bitterly opposed it, the right-wing liberals supported it without enthusiasm and the Catholic Christian democrats were strongly in favor of republicanism.


After 1945, Catholic centrism and right-wing liberalism more or less united in the non-confessional Christian Democratic party (CDU/CSU). Due to its roots in Christian democracy, that party is decidedly more economically left-leaning than American conservatives. In the years between 1946-48, large parts of the CDU/CSU even supported abolishing capitalism in favor of "Christian socialism". That didn't happen, because ordo-liberals took over and introduced the very successful model of "Social Market Economy" in Germany -- a mixed economy with strong emphasis on stability.

True free market advocates founded the Free Democrats (FDP) in 1946, a classically liberal party aimed at uniting different brands of liberals (ranging from market libertarians to social liberals). That party became junior partner in many post-war governments.


In today's Germany?

The major party right of the center today are the Christian Democrats. They won 41.5% in the 2013 election and governed (West-)Germany longer than any other party after 1949. Due to their roots in Christian democracy, they don't question the social state. Since Merkel became Chancellor in 2005, she even moved that party away from social conservatism into a pragmatic center. Maybe it's not even wrong to identify the CDU/CSU under Merkel as a pragmatic "third way" party.

The economically most right-wing party are still the Free Democrats (FDP). They won 14.6% of the votes in 2009, but suffered a humiliating defeat in 2013 with 4.8% only. They're basically what Americans would call "libertarian" -- very much in favor of low taxes and free markets, but socially moderate, progressive even.

A new contender is the right-populist Alternative for Germany (AFD) with 4.7% of the votes in the 2013 election. Founded by economy professors and big business enterprisers, it's very pro-free market, but the only party in Germany with a clear anti-EU stance. Their major slogan is "no more German money for EU failed states!". Since its inception last year, it has also attracted many angry people on the right unhappy with immigration. It remains to be seen how far to the right it will still shift, maybe taking up an anti-islam stance too.

Yeah, and then, there is the neo-Nazi party of the National Democrats (NPD), but it's just a splinter party and never won more than 1.6% of the votes on federal level.

 

[RiverDad]

Maybe it's helpful when I give an example of a European political landscape. So I'll choose the one I'm most familiar with, that of Germany

Thilo Sarrazin's book sold a lot of copies, where in the political spectrum within Germany would you guess his message found most resonance?

 

[German guy]

Thilo Sarrazin's book sold a lot of copies, where in the political spectrum within Germany would you guess his message found most resonance?

I'd say among all the people, on the right and beyond, who are angry and have a beef with immigrants. As far as I know, he limited himself mostly to that topic and ranted against "the elites", which is a perfect example of populism.

Some of his statements were clearly racist, such as his very wild theories about a connection between alleged low intelligence and genetics of immigrants, which will probably find special applause among neo-Nazis, but even way beyond that, even in parts of the illiberal far-left, enough people feel "we are not free to speak our minds because of that elitist political correctness cartell", is a statement they'd subscribe to.

For some strange reason, these populist sentiments (anti-immigrant, anti-islam, anti-elite) are not yet reflected in the German political spectrum, although they are very strong among a good share of people. But no party has yet managed to capitalize on it, unlike in other European countries.

The Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) sometimes use mild anti-immigrant rhetorics, but are way too moderate to please this demographic. And the neo-Nazi NPD is way too extreme and rooted in neo-Nazi subculture to be successful beyond a tiny minority.

The most likely contender is probably the new AFD, which so far is mostly limited on attacks on the EU. They also took many efforts not to appear xenophobic, in order not to attract the wrong people (too angry people with too few competence). But you never know in which direction that party will go in the next months and years.

 

[RiverDad]

I'd say among all the people, on the right and beyond, who are angry and have a beef with immigrants. As far as I know, he limited himself mostly to that topic and ranted against "the elites", which is a perfect example of populism.

Do you mean that his extended commentary focused on the cosmopolitan aspect of the elites where they use their influence to expand the power of cross-national elites at the expense of ordinary German citizens, that their loyalty lies elsewhere?

Some of his statements were clearly racist, such as his very wild theories about a connection between alleged low intelligence and genetics of immigrants

I'd be wary of invoking the evolution=racism because then what do you do after that, repudiate evolutionary sciences in order to be non-racist?

enough people feel "we are not free to speak our minds because of that elitist political correctness cartell", is a statement they'd subscribe to.

This seems to be a universal problem.

For some strange reason, these populist sentiments (anti-immigrant, anti-islam, anti-elite) are not yet reflected in the German political spectrum, although they are very strong among a good share of people. But no party has yet managed to capitalize on it, unlike in other European countries.

That's very interesting. How much do you imagine is because to champion that viewpoint runs counter to the social standards which have been given birth by the Left and internalized by everyone across the political spectrum due to the policing aspect of political correctness? Of course there is Germany's unique history to deal with and I can imagine the safer course is to just remain silent.

The Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) sometimes use mild anti-immigrant rhetorics, but are way too moderate to please this demographic. And the neo-Nazi NPD is way too extreme and rooted in neo-Nazi subculture to be successful beyond a tiny minority.

My understanding is that there has been quiet bureaucratic action to limit immigration and to spur on voluntary returns and that leading politicians didn't welcome Sarrazin's spotlight on the issue.

The most likely contender is probably the new AFD, which so far is mostly limited on attacks on the EU. They also took many efforts not to appear xenophobic, in order not to attract the wrong people (too angry people with too few competence). But you never know in which direction that party will go in the next months and years.

Do you believe that Germany can withstand the processes driving France and the UK towards anti-immigrant parties? I go back to Konig's point about conservative parties putting a lot of emphasis on the immigration issue. There is very overt movement on that issue in many countries. Can that issue play out sub-rosa in Germany or will it emerge into the light?

 

[German guy]

Do you mean that his extended commentary focused on the cosmopolitan aspect of the elites where they use their influence to expand the power of cross-national elites at the expense of ordinary German citizens, that their loyalty lies elsewhere?

I haven't read his book, just about it, but my impression is that he does not go remotely that far. He's basically just lamenting that "everybody knows Turks are dumb and rude, but the elites in media and politics immediately play the Nazi card when you point that out".

I'd be wary of invoking the evolution=racism because then what do you do after that, repudiate evolutionary sciences in order to be non-racist?

No. But to my knowledge, the current position of science on that matter is that intelligence is neither purely genetic, nor purely acquired, but formed along the lines of 60%/40%. Sarrazin ignores that. Also, on one side, he stresses how important education is for success and that education will unveal unused human potential (when it's about Germans), but on the other, simply says "immigrants are stupid because of genetics", ignoring that among immigrants of all people, there is much unvealed potential (probably even moreso than among native Germans, because among immigrants, it's more common that other reasons than low intelligence are responsible for bad education).

The problem with Sarrazin, as I see it, is that he's drawing the wrong, exaggerated and simplistic conclusions out of scientific findings. He's basically using a rhetoric sledghammer where a scalpel would be more useful -- at least as long as you don't want to slip into pseudo-science.

This seems to be a universal problem.

Yes, and you find the same kind of sentiment on the far-left too. Just that they aren't complaining about an alleged "liberal PC cartell", but about "a capitalist big business cartell" that keeps the true opinions of the people out of the media.

I guess our media must be making *something* right, when far-righters blame it for a left bias and far-lefties blame it for a capitalist bias.

That's very interesting. How much do you imagine is because to champion that viewpoint runs counter to the social standards which have been given birth by the Left and internalized by everyone across the political spectrum due to the policing aspect of political correctness? Of course there is Germany's unique history to deal with and I can imagine the safer course is to just remain silent.

I'd say it's mostly because of our past. Nobody wants to be connected to Nazism. So the "Nazi card" has a much stronger weight in Germany than in other countries, I guess. You even sometimes meet the schizophrenic situation that some people actually think like Nazis and speak like Nazis, yet they're 100% convinced they have nothing to do with Nazism -- and totally condemn the neo-Nazi NPD i.e.

So for right-populism to be successful in Germany, I guess, the biggest hurdle is making sure that they can convincingly put a clear distance to neo-Nazism.

My understanding is that there has been quiet bureaucratic action to limit immigration and to spur on voluntary returns and that leading politicians didn't welcome Sarrazin's spotlight on the issue.

Hm, I didn't hear of that. But a tricky aspect was that Sarrazin actually is a member of the center-left liberal Social Democrats. Of course this left-leaning party was not amused and considered throwing him out of the party. IIRC, that attempt was unsuccessful.

Do you believe that Germany can withstand the processes driving France and the UK towards anti-immigrant parties? I go back to Konig's point about conservative parties putting a lot of emphasis on the immigration issue. There is very overt movement on that issue in many countries. Can that issue play out sub-rosa in Germany or will it emerge into the light?

My guess is that it's only a matter of time until a right-populist party will be somewhat successful in Germany. Maybe the AFD is that party already. All they need is a competent, charismatic leader to come around who can keep the party together, and it's a deal.

 

[DVSentinel]

They have conservatives in Europe?