This article was very difficult to understand. The author was at pains to reiterate the CDU/CSU consensus that AfD is radioactive and must be kept out of power. She then goes on to give a reasonable, fact-based assessment of how immigration can successfully coexist with liberal democracies. The only problem is that it is the AfD, not the CDU/CSU, that has the greatest credibility in actually implementing the immigration regime she promotes.
Not only that: the author's criticisms of the AfD fall flat on every point made:
1) She intends to provoke fear of "something unprecedented in its postwar history: a far-right party not merely joining a regional government, but potentially running one itself." But Germany's mainstream parties have vowed never to go into coalition with the AfD (their Brandmauer/Firewall strategy), while simultaneously ignoring voter grievances. CDU/CSU themselves are doing the illiberal thing: refusing AfD supporters the representation their vote share deserves, and thereby setting the stage for the unprecedented.
2) The AfD proposals and framing listed as prima facie "morally wrong" are, in fact, nothing of the sort.
-"Presenting the attack as the inevitable consequence of unfettered migration": how is it morally wrong to state the obvious truth that "unfettered" (author's word) migration from countries where Islamism is endemic will inevitably result in Islamist attacks? (N.b., the risk of Islamist radicalization has been found to be higher in children of immigrants from Muslim countries than their parents, as appears to be the case with the alleged perpetrator Ballout.)
-"The party has accordingly called for foreign citizens deemed potential threats to be deported immediately": it would, in fact, be immoral not to do so. Germany has no moral obligation to allow any non-citizens to reside within its borders, and has a positive moral obligation to deport foreigners whose presence puts Germans at risk.
-"for dual nationals to have their German citizenship revoked": it was only in 2024 that Germany started allowing dual citizenship wherever the reciprocal country also allowed it. While this proposal could be implemented in an immoral way, there is nothing immoral about not allowing dual citizenship; many countries have restrictions on this practice, and Germany used to.
- "for “remigration” and reform of German citizenship laws": remigration, as far as I can tell, is the deportation of those who have no legal right to remain in Germany, and the author herself, in this same piece, goes on to acknowledge that it is problematic that so few people with legal right to be present in Germany are being deported. And if German citizens cannot vote for a reform of German citizenship laws, then what kind of government does Germany have, anyway?
3) Is it *really* hypocritical for AfD to be outraged and horrified that LGBTQ+ individuals and/or their supporters were killed in an extremist attack, if AfD has also opposed same-sex marriage and liberal, pluralist values? The author seems to imply that there is no legitimate basis upon which to oppose murder aside from liberalism/pluralism, which is an odd thing for a liberal to believe, at least if proceeding from classical liberalism.
So which is the primary derangement in German politics: the existence and relative popularity of a right wing, illiberal party, or rather the refusal of the governing, liberal CDU/CSU to channel the public will into government action and policy as regards immigration? The author admits that it is the latter.
Indeed, as a result of the CDU/CSU's anti-democratic disposition, Germany now faces the prospect of AfD leading a state government, when that state has designated AfD as a "confirmed right wing extremist" party. So the AfD will be subject to intensive surveillance by state intelligence services, over which the AfD will come to have oversight. Sticky wicket, there.
It seems that in Germany, and elsewhere, the positive moral content of liberalism (equality, freedom of movement, libertinism) has come into conflict with liberalism's political content (democratic rule). It will be interesting to see how this conflict is resolved; all signs currently point towards democracy being the current, and eventual, loser.
The Nordic countries seemingly have moved far in their reversal in previous liberal immigration policies. What is taking Germany so long to get the memo?
"It is also hypocritical since, despite outrage at an attack on Germany’s LGBTQ+ community, the AfD opposes liberal and pluralist values and has consistently worked to undermine LGBTQ+ rights."
I'm sorry, but that is a complete clown sentence. Since when does Persuasion argue that holding the wrong politics on LGBT issues means you lose the right to object to terrorism?
Mass immigration raises serious issues, not least democratic consent. Berman acknowledges that mainstream parties failed to represent widespread public concern, yet still frames that concern through the “far right.” The label is often needed because many on the left do not hold the mainstream position, but still want to present themselves as the reasonable centre.
Unfortunately, we may see an AfD lead government in Sachsen Anhalt before a true wake-up call in Germany. There are many layers of issues: jurisdictional differences between the Bund and the Länder; too many lawyers in the Bundestag (or, for that matter, in Germany) that confuse being Juristen with governing; weak federal leadership (again, a lawyer) with no vision and apparently no real compass for what Germany is about in the 21st century; and, perhaps finally, the age-old German Besserwissertum of the governing (this is really what Merz radiates when he speaks). With some notable exceptions, waves of immigrants after WWII arrived in Germany - first, from Italy, then Greece, then Turkey. These immigrants integrated - it was hard work, because we Germans do not make it easy, but they did it. We all had our favorite Italian, Greek, and Turkish friends in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and later. Most of these immigrants came to Germany because they wanted to be German - that was good. It was about the culture. More recent arrivals did not integrate as well, and successive governments could not articulate a clear expectation that these new arrivals need to get on board with being German. It will not get better until we have real leadership in Berlin, and that will also not come from the AfD.
This article was very difficult to understand. The author was at pains to reiterate the CDU/CSU consensus that AfD is radioactive and must be kept out of power. She then goes on to give a reasonable, fact-based assessment of how immigration can successfully coexist with liberal democracies. The only problem is that it is the AfD, not the CDU/CSU, that has the greatest credibility in actually implementing the immigration regime she promotes.
Not only that: the author's criticisms of the AfD fall flat on every point made:
1) She intends to provoke fear of "something unprecedented in its postwar history: a far-right party not merely joining a regional government, but potentially running one itself." But Germany's mainstream parties have vowed never to go into coalition with the AfD (their Brandmauer/Firewall strategy), while simultaneously ignoring voter grievances. CDU/CSU themselves are doing the illiberal thing: refusing AfD supporters the representation their vote share deserves, and thereby setting the stage for the unprecedented.
2) The AfD proposals and framing listed as prima facie "morally wrong" are, in fact, nothing of the sort.
-"Presenting the attack as the inevitable consequence of unfettered migration": how is it morally wrong to state the obvious truth that "unfettered" (author's word) migration from countries where Islamism is endemic will inevitably result in Islamist attacks? (N.b., the risk of Islamist radicalization has been found to be higher in children of immigrants from Muslim countries than their parents, as appears to be the case with the alleged perpetrator Ballout.)
-"The party has accordingly called for foreign citizens deemed potential threats to be deported immediately": it would, in fact, be immoral not to do so. Germany has no moral obligation to allow any non-citizens to reside within its borders, and has a positive moral obligation to deport foreigners whose presence puts Germans at risk.
-"for dual nationals to have their German citizenship revoked": it was only in 2024 that Germany started allowing dual citizenship wherever the reciprocal country also allowed it. While this proposal could be implemented in an immoral way, there is nothing immoral about not allowing dual citizenship; many countries have restrictions on this practice, and Germany used to.
-"for German citizens deemed potential threats to be taken into custody": here, at last, is a proposal that seems concerning, at least for civil libertarians. But the CDU/CSU have proposed the same thing! https://www.welt.de/regionales/berlin/article6a69c53618af02e41ad87303/afd-und-cdu-fordern-praeventivhaft-fuer-gefaehrder.html
- "for “remigration” and reform of German citizenship laws": remigration, as far as I can tell, is the deportation of those who have no legal right to remain in Germany, and the author herself, in this same piece, goes on to acknowledge that it is problematic that so few people with legal right to be present in Germany are being deported. And if German citizens cannot vote for a reform of German citizenship laws, then what kind of government does Germany have, anyway?
3) Is it *really* hypocritical for AfD to be outraged and horrified that LGBTQ+ individuals and/or their supporters were killed in an extremist attack, if AfD has also opposed same-sex marriage and liberal, pluralist values? The author seems to imply that there is no legitimate basis upon which to oppose murder aside from liberalism/pluralism, which is an odd thing for a liberal to believe, at least if proceeding from classical liberalism.
So which is the primary derangement in German politics: the existence and relative popularity of a right wing, illiberal party, or rather the refusal of the governing, liberal CDU/CSU to channel the public will into government action and policy as regards immigration? The author admits that it is the latter.
Indeed, as a result of the CDU/CSU's anti-democratic disposition, Germany now faces the prospect of AfD leading a state government, when that state has designated AfD as a "confirmed right wing extremist" party. So the AfD will be subject to intensive surveillance by state intelligence services, over which the AfD will come to have oversight. Sticky wicket, there.
It seems that in Germany, and elsewhere, the positive moral content of liberalism (equality, freedom of movement, libertinism) has come into conflict with liberalism's political content (democratic rule). It will be interesting to see how this conflict is resolved; all signs currently point towards democracy being the current, and eventual, loser.
The Nordic countries seemingly have moved far in their reversal in previous liberal immigration policies. What is taking Germany so long to get the memo?
"It is also hypocritical since, despite outrage at an attack on Germany’s LGBTQ+ community, the AfD opposes liberal and pluralist values and has consistently worked to undermine LGBTQ+ rights."
I'm sorry, but that is a complete clown sentence. Since when does Persuasion argue that holding the wrong politics on LGBT issues means you lose the right to object to terrorism?
Mass immigration raises serious issues, not least democratic consent. Berman acknowledges that mainstream parties failed to represent widespread public concern, yet still frames that concern through the “far right.” The label is often needed because many on the left do not hold the mainstream position, but still want to present themselves as the reasonable centre.
Unfortunately, we may see an AfD lead government in Sachsen Anhalt before a true wake-up call in Germany. There are many layers of issues: jurisdictional differences between the Bund and the Länder; too many lawyers in the Bundestag (or, for that matter, in Germany) that confuse being Juristen with governing; weak federal leadership (again, a lawyer) with no vision and apparently no real compass for what Germany is about in the 21st century; and, perhaps finally, the age-old German Besserwissertum of the governing (this is really what Merz radiates when he speaks). With some notable exceptions, waves of immigrants after WWII arrived in Germany - first, from Italy, then Greece, then Turkey. These immigrants integrated - it was hard work, because we Germans do not make it easy, but they did it. We all had our favorite Italian, Greek, and Turkish friends in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and later. Most of these immigrants came to Germany because they wanted to be German - that was good. It was about the culture. More recent arrivals did not integrate as well, and successive governments could not articulate a clear expectation that these new arrivals need to get on board with being German. It will not get better until we have real leadership in Berlin, and that will also not come from the AfD.