Mediaboss Marketing

The Free Democratic Party (FDP) could be the comeback storyof the upcoming German election. The party is seen as the preferred coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, but it could also play kingmaker to a center-left government by pairing up with the Social Democrats and the Greens. Polls suggest the party will return to the Bundestag this election. Just four years ago, many commentators had pronounced the FDP dead when it was unable to collect the 5 percent of the vote necessary to enter Germany's parliament.

But when Germans have to explain to foreigners what the party stands for, they often face a conundrum: How to translate the German "liberal" into English.

German liberals lean right

In German, the term "liberal" is unambiguously tied to the FDP's pro-business, pro-civil liberties tenets. "Liberals in Germany want the state be confined to providing safety for the people and a stable environment, but not meddle around with people with overabundant regulation," explained German political scientist Michael Dreyer. The FDP, led by 38-year old former business consultant Christian Lindner, espouses progressive stances on social issues such as gay marriage, but these issues often take a backseat to the party's "pro-business" economic platform, which is why the partyand German liberals in generalare often perceived as right of center.

Chancellor Merkel would reportedly prefer to form a coalition with the FDP, led by Christian Lindner

US liberals lean left

Especially in the United States -whose media tends to dominate international political coverage - "liberal" is often considered synonymous with left-leaning members of the Democratic Party:pro welfare state, pro minority rights, pro economic regulation.

Part of the problem is that "liberal" does not fit nicely on one side of the political spectrum. While, for example, the British and Canadian liberal parties are both moderate leftist parties, the Australian liberal party is staunchly conservative.

"Since 'liberal' is one of the oldest political terms in the Western repertoire, it has a whole variety of meanings, and it also encompasses a lot of different wings," Dreyer pointed out.

The Free Democrats are hoping to re-enter the German Bundestag in the September election

Liberalism as a political philosophy emerged and gained popularity in Europe during the Age of the Enlightenment in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. British philosopher John Locke is often credited as its founding father, going back to his "Two Treatises of Government," published in 1689, in which he argued that the state should protect every citizen's right to life, liberty and property.

What unites liberals today is the quest for individual freedom, says Professor Karl-Heinz Paque, co-chairman of the FDP-affiliated Friedrich Neumann Foundation. "Being liberal means that the individual must be at the foreground of politics. So liberals do everything to enhance individual freedom and responsibility."

Where different schools of liberalism differis in which circumstances they believe state intervention can enhance - or curtail - people's freedom.

Shaped by other parties

Liberal parties have been shaped largely through the strength or weakness of the left- and right-wing parties in their respective countries.

"One of the reasons why liberal has become synonymous with left of center politics in the United States is the fact that there has never been a development of a successful workers' party," says political scientist Dreyer. Liberals were considered the most progressive political group before the surge of socialist and communist movements in the late 19th century -and have remained the strongest progressive force in the US by incorporating some of the left's central demands.

In the US, progressive politicians such as Elizabeth Warren are referred to as 'liberals'

Germany, meanwhile, has a long tradition of a strong Social Democratic Party, one of the oldest political parties inthe world, on the left, and has had socialist andcommunistparties for nearly a century. According to Karl-Heinz Paque, Germany's Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens have pushed liberals to see themselves primarily as the protectors of citizens and companies from an overreaching welfare state.

So is the FDP libertarian?

Presumably to avoid the ambiguity of "liberal,"some English-language mediause "libertarian" to describe the FDP. Employed primarily in the US, the term refers to an ideology that favors a laissez-faire approach to the economy and endorses "whatever floats your boat" social policies .

German FDP politicians have very little in common with US libertarians like one-time presidential candidate Gary Johnson

While both German liberals and US libertarians want a smaller state, most FDP members reject the notion they are libertarians because the term is often associated with radically anti-government views. "I don't bend down to American terminology, it is not historically adequate," Paque said. "Just like I don't call football 'soccer'just because Americans call it that."

Germans generally favor a much stronger welfare state than most Americans, which is why even the platforms of Germany's moderatelyright-wing parties - the FDP and the conservative CDU/CSU -overlap more with those of the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party, which has a strong libertarian wing, or the Libertarian Party itself. FDP members point to the example of health care to illustrate the difference between German liberals and US libertarians: While the FDP is in favor of state-sponsored health care, US libertarians want to see "Obamacare" abolished.

View post:
What sets Germany's 'liberal' FDP apart - Deutsche Welle

Last year, dueling panels at Netroots Nation, the annual gathering of progressive activists, mulled the role of the federal courts in the progressive mission. One panel argued that the liberal fixation on protecting the courts contributed to a general apathy in off-cycle elections if federal judges can protect everything, whats the point of any other election? The other issued an urgent call to remember that the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance and Justice Kennedy is playing coy with the fate of civil rights in America.

One year later, after an emotionally deflating electoral collapse, Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice began another edition of her annual courts panel at the conference. The Trump era has brought the outline of a dialectical synthesis to these competing visions of the role of the judiciary. A realization that maybe theyve fundamentally had this judiciary thing wrong all along.

The panel, featuring Professor Kimberl Crenshaw of Columbia, UCLA, and the African American Policy Forum, Anisha Singh of the Why Courts Matter project at the Center for American Progress, and Sean Carlson from Revolution Messaging didnt say as much, of course, but the deeper they got into the discussion with Aron, two big themes stood out that challenged the way left-leaning people have talked about courts for years and, in the process, bridged the gap of those competing visions from last year.

First, the judiciary cannot be a progressive issue in and of itself all other progressive issues must be framed through the courts. Rather than say courts are important, activists need to seize on issues that are already stirring people, and then connect those issues to the courts. Singh specifically pointed to the health care fight as proof that theres an enthusiasm to fight for issues that people feel impact them directly. The problem is harnessing that same passion when the threat to health care (or any other issue of importance) is indirect, like in a judicial confirmation fight. Carlson agreed, explaining that progressives have a tremendous problem when they cannot make a connection between the courts and the issues the public cares about.

This bridges the gap that divided the panels last year, upholding the idea that the fight to control the judiciary holds critical importance without lionizing it as a vanguard against all threats. Instead its one building block in a larger struggle.

Second, Professor Crenshaw pointed out the elephant in the room: the Federalist Society set out years ago to create a platoon of ideologues to populate the judiciary that would be capable of passing any neutral test of qualifications. As Democrats strive to appear bi-partisan, these qualifications are used as a cudgel to peel off Democrats to support nominations because, after all, theyre qualified. She described the Clarence Thomas nomination and the reluctance of civil rights organizations before the Anita Hill testimony, of course to oppose Thomas out of the gate. That failure to get ahead of the narrative allowed right-wing activists to sell Thomas before his actual vetting. The fact that Democrats are starting to recognize that rsums cannot salvage people deeply unsuited for the bench is a testament to nominees like Judge John Bush of the Sixth Circuit and Damien Schiff and if you havent watched their hearings, you really should treat yourself.

This failure to embrace a coherent progressive judicial ideology was indirectly highlighted when Aron reminded the audience that Trump campaigned on a list of judges hed consider putting on the Supreme Court. But the real point is that this list existed before Trumps candidacy. The Heritage Foundation had its cast list of ideological purity drawn up already. Progressives have no companion list that the movement can fervently rally around.

Professor Crenshaw explained this Democratic discomfort with ideology carries over to their nominations. Republican nominees have cult-like adherence to their intellectually facile doctrines of textualism and (situational) originalism, while there is no such thing as a coherent left-leaning judicial ideology.

Crenshaw argued that until the left gains comfort with the courts as an ideological question until they create a new language for judicial expertise that cant be hacked by just throwing a Harvard diploma on it the left is playing gentlemans tennis while [conservatives are] dropping bombs.

Aron left the crowd with the prediction that a Kennedy vacancy would spark the biggest mobilization of progressives in the judicial arena. This year, it seems that if that retirement were to happen, progressives know how to harness that mobilization.

Earlier: The Liberal Argument Against The Supreme Court

Joe Patriceis an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

Here is the original post:
In Wake Of Trump, Liberals Start To Realize They've Had The Judiciary All Wrong - Above the Law

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region A number of liberal politicians in Sweden are urging their government to welcome Kurdistan Regions decision to hold an independence referendum in September, citing the failed Iraqi government, Kurdistans protection of minority groups, and the right to self-determination under international law.

We liberals see that Iraq has become a so-called failed state and we think it would be better for all of its entities if Iraq and Kurdistan went separate ways such as Czechoslovakia in 1992 were divided into both the Czech Republic and Slovakia, reads the collaborative statement co-signed by eight Swedish politicians.

The opinion article was first published in Svenska Dagbladet, a daily newspaper. The politicians believe a peaceful separation from Iraq is a practical one.

If the people of Iraq cannot coexist within one and the same national boundary, they should, for democratic reasons, be able to proclaim independence and then live as good neighbors, it read.

They argued The central government has repeatedly shown inability to provide protection and care for the whole country. The new Iraq has been shown to pursue the same pan-Arabic policy towards Kurdistan that has always and undeniably failed.

The politicians highlight the defense of the Kurdistan Region against ISIS militants by a multicultural Peshmerga, pointing out the protection of minority groups in Nineveh province including Assyrians, Syriacs and Chaldeans, who also should be given the right to self-government.

They say they are optimistic about the future of various groups in Kurdistan, which has hosted more than 1.5 million displaced Iraqis since 2014.

We look forward to a Kurdistan where the various ethnic and religious groups continue to live in unity and with fundamental rights just as they do today in the autonomous region, read the article.

The Swedes believe that the right to self-determination is central.

We all shall be entitled to decide on our own future, they added. There are principles under international law and we support the Kurds' right to self-determination and the process that ensures this.

Liberal support in Sweden for Kurdistan is deeply rooted, the politicians noted, citing expressed support and work by their party since 2010.

Liberals have a long tradition of solidarity with the people of Kurdistan, and we therefore welcome the outcome of the referendum and look forward to the fact that the world is gaining a new state and the Middle East another democratic state, they concluded.

The op-ed was co-signed by the Swedish Liberals Birgitta Ohlsson (MP, Foreign Policy Spokesman); Cecilia Wikstrm (European MP); Fredrik Malm (MP, Migration Policy Spokesman); Maria Leissner (Ambassador and former Party Chairperson); Olle Schmidt (Substitute city council in Malm, former MEP and vice president of ALDE); Joar Forssell (Federal Chairman of the Liberal Youth League, Sukr Demir (2nd Vice Chairman of the International Committee of Solna); Sirwan Dabagh (Preparation for Democracy, Equality & Human Rights, Malm).

Translations by Biza Barzo

Continue reading here:
Swedish Liberals: Let Iraq and Kurdistan go their separate ways - Rudaw

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Liberal Crackup Wall Street Journal (subscription) Donald Trump's surprise victory in last year's presidential election has finally energized my fellow liberals, who are networking, marching and showing up at town-hall meetings across the country. There is excited talk about winning back the White ... and more »

Read more here:
The Liberal Crackup - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Conservatives could rebrand as liberals, wrote Bill Kristol on Saturday, delighting the subset of the Internet that has long raged about neocon infiltrators and fake conservatives. But Kristol, editor at-large of The Weekly Standard and a one-time professor of political philosophy, meant something different. Seriously, he continued. Were for liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal economy, [and] liberal education.

Is Kristol right? Some say yes, conservatives have been classical liberals all along. Truth in advertising was how Adrian Vermeule, the conservative Harvard law professor, characterized the American conservatives-as-liberals rebranding. An astute British observer had a knowing laugh: Is there anything funnier than watching right-wingers gradually realise theyre just liberals in real time?

This view, that American conservatism crossed the River Styx into philosophical liberalism with its embrace of the free market, is too clever by half. Really: Are we so devoted to Gladstone that we have learned nothing from Disraeli? So preoccupied with the Wealth of Nations that we have forsaken the Bible? All Locke, Smith, and Friedman, without Fortescue, Burke, and Kirk?

I dont think so. Any fair appraisal of the American conservative movement would not, like Scooby-Doos Mystery Team unmasking the ghost only to find a man underneath, find liberalism all the way down.

But does that mean conservatism is illiberal? In last Fridays Wall Street Journal, Israeli philosopher Yoram Hazony argues that theres no such thing as an Illiberal. This is true as far it goes. Describing populists, nationalists, and Nazis alike, illiberalism too often functions as a lazy catch-all for critics. This is similar to how Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists beat up on religion in the abstract, conflating dissimilar belief systems to gain an argumentative advantage. However, illiberalism is also a useful grouping of the alternatives to liberalism, our ancien regime. Conservatism, a certain type of traditionalist would hold, is just one of these alternatives, entirely distinct from liberalism.

Yet this too seems unlikely and unfair. Just refer back to Kristols list: Conservatives can comfortably embrace liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal education, and arguably, a liberal economy. I would add liberal free speech, religious liberty, and the values of the American Founding. Id also note that Edmund Burke and Adam Smith were mutual admirers, viewing each other as allies not enemies.

What emerges is a complicated picture of conservatives as not wholly liberal yet not wholly illiberal either. Conservatives, it seems to me, are more than liberals; or, put it this way: We are liberals secondarily. By this I mean that we have commitments that precede our liberalism, and these commitments are themselves pre-liberal. Their authority is ancestral, not chosen. They are the first, the permanent things, and contra Locke, conservatives find their authority legitimate.

Conservatism, for example, may include liberal capitalism, but with a prior commitment to the dignity of the human person, the redeeming covenant of marriage, and the goods of family, faith, and community. Those are the foundations that we attempt to conserve, before we employ liberalism. It allows conservatives to escape from a self-undermining, pure libertarianism and pursue economics as if people mattered, as E. F. Schumacher put it.

Behind every conservative embrace of liberalism, there is a prior and pre-liberal commitment. We are for liberal free speech, but with a prior commitment to decency. We support liberal democracy, but with a prior commitment to justice, not just conflict de-escalation. We praise liberal education, but to save it from undermining itself with skepticism, we need a prior commitment to Truth.

Finally, conservatives defend liberal world order, but with a prior commitment to the nation, America. This is why U.S. conservatives (including Bill Kristol) overwhelmingly supported Brexit while Britains Liberal Democrats were its strongest opponents. And for much the same reason, Leo Strauss presciently identified Zionism as a conservative movement in 1956. As Strauss reminded the editors of National Review,

The moral spine of the Jews was in danger of being broken by the so-called emancipation which in many cases had alienated them from their heritage....Political Zionism was the attempt to restore that inner freedom, that simple dignity, of which only people who remember their heritage and are loyal to their fate, are capable....It helped to stem the tide of progressive levelling of venerable ancestral differences; it fulfilled a conservative function.

A full commitment to a liberal world order leads liberals to sacrifice national identity and sovereignty to international organizations such as the EU and U.N. It induces Jews and Christians to accept emancipation from religion and nationality in the hopes of joining Hillary Clintons global village or becoming Karl Marxs species-beings. This is why Prime Minister Trudeau insists that Canada has no core identity and President Macron rejects any single French culture. It is why President Obama, in so many words, dismissed American exceptionalism.

But American conservatives walk a different path. We understand that such a liberal order would be brittle; standing for nothing, it is left with no tool but force to secure obedience. But who would fight and die for the European Union? This sort of unrestrained liberalism risks losing the pre-liberal loyalties upon which our liberty and security truly rely.

Irving Kristol had a similar worry about liberalism in economics, the unrestrained free society of Friedman and Hayek. It is interesting to note what Hayek is doing, wrote the elder Kristol in 1970. He is opposing a free society to a just society because he says, while we know what freedom is, we have no generally accepted knowledge of what justice is. Kristol thought Hayeks characteristically liberal move was dangerous. Can men live in a free society if they have no reason to believe it is also a just society? he asked, I do not think so.

In order to recover that prior commitment to justice, which was so necessary to sustaining capitalism and liberty, Kristol recommended the long trek back to pre-modern political philosophy....Perhaps there we shall discover some of those elements that are most desperately needed by [our] spiritually impoverished civilization.

Accordingly, Irving Kristol would write in 1993 that religion was the most important pillar of modern conservatism. Vying for second and third were nationalism and economic growth. Liberalism surely requires all three elements to survive, but the first two are pre-liberal. Liberalism risks abandoning them in its fixation on abstract theorizing about universal, natural man, disconnected from faith, family, community, or nation.

There is certainly a tension, and more than one, in this conservative relationship to liberalism. We need liberalism to bring our nation freedom, wealth, power, and peace. But that same liberalism weakens the pre-liberal commitments that form its very foundation. Liberalism, then, risks undermining itself and therefore must be managed or rationed. As a parent might say, liberalism is good in moderation.

But even still, American conservatism is destined to be odd. If we are to be patriots, loyal to our founding ideals, then liberalism must be part of what we strive to conserve. This feature of American conservatism has led some thinkers, most notably Notre Dames Patrick Deneen, to urge a reevaluation and even a rejection of the American Founding. But such a rejection would threaten to render conservatism always confusing in a country founded by a revolution incoherent. Our venerable American difference, so obvious to observers such as Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville, is our passionate commitment to liberty. As American conservatives, defending liberalism is part of what it means to stand athwart History.

It would be un-conservative for Americans to abandon liberalism, just as it would be un-conservative to give in too fully to the liberal temptation. Calling ourselves liberals, as Bill Kristol suggested, would obscure what many of us really believe to be foundational. We dont need a Liberal Party or an Illiberal Party either, for that matter. Both are hasty attempts to rebrand the movement in response to the election of President Trump. Instead, let us focus our conservatism. It should cherish the spirit of liberty while defending the goods that come before and sustain it.

READ MORE: Is the GOP a Republican Party or a Conservative One? Rise of the Young Traditionalists Did William F. Buckleys Conservative Project End in Failure?

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

See original here:
American Conservatism & Liberalism: Is a Rebranding In Order ... - National Review