Thoughts on Germany and Katrina

It's been an interesting week for elections around the world: in the past seven days, voters in Norway, New Zealand, Afghanistan and Germany have all gone to the polls.  I don't know if we know much about what has happened in Afghanistan yet, but as far as that country is concerned, I'm just happy that their process was unmarred by serious violence.

From a left perspective, the results of the three elections in the Western countries weren't half bad.  Norway moved from centre-right to centre-left, with the Red-Green Alliance of Jens Stoltenberg promising to pull out Norway's tiny contingent of troops in Iraq.

In New Zealand, Helen Clark matched Tony Blair by winning a third consecutive election.  Here, by a slender margin, the centre-left Labour Party seems very likely to stay in power.  The conservative National Party had significant gains, which ought to please my friend John, but they seem to have fallen just short of the mark.  The National Party had promised closer ties to the United States.

And yesterday, I am happy to say, the German left did surprisingly well.  Yes, all of the news this morning is about the mess in Germany, with any number of unstable coalitions in the offing.  But the real story that isn't getting covered is not the late surge by the Social Democratic Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, nor the late collapse of the Christian Democrat candidate, Angela Merkel.  The story is that the three left wing parties (the SPD -- Social Democrats, the Greens, and the "Linkspartei" -- a coalition of SPD defectors and some former communists) outpolled the free market conservatives.  50.8% of the voters cast their ballots for the left, despite predictions that this election would lead to the triumph of the centre-right.

The right-wing in this country is bemoaning what they see as a lost opportunity for Germans to do the right thing, come to their senses, and begin implementing American style capitalism.  The Wall Street Journal laments:

German voters may not again get quite as good a shot at installing a government that can bring about real economic reforms. Voters balked at real change at the last minute. In the words of economist Norbert Walter, "they wanted someone to wash their fur, but at the same time not get it wet." Most Germans understand that their country has to modernize in the long run, but, says Thomas Kielinger, a writer for the newspaper Die Welt, "when push comes to shove many are reluctant to go for the candidate who tells it like it is."

The late economist Mancur Olson argued that the downfall of democracy would be its tendency to calcify into special-interest gridlock. Germany's extensive welfare state has created millions of voters who fear the loss of any benefits. Combine that with voters in eastern Germany who cling to outmoded notions of state support and you have an formidable challenge to bring about real reform.

Gosh, that's not how I'd read it.  As a committed socialist, I reject the equation that suggests reform=free markets - social protections.   Though of course I would have liked a more resounding show by the left, I am happy that so many Germans are clearly unwilling to abandon the most vulnerable members of society.

I haven't done much checking in the German press (my German language skills are passable but not terrific), but I have to wonder if Hurricane Katrina played a part in the comeback by the Social Democrats (who were widely predicted to lose to the conservatives by a substantial margin).  Visions of poverty and a poor response by underfunded, underprepared government agencies may, just may, have frightened some Germans.  After all, in the aftermath of Katrina, it's more difficult than usual to argue that Americans have the most efficient government in the world.  Some Germans may have looked at the images from the Gulf and said "That's what happens when people are abandoned by their government."  Katrina is a reminder that while private sector charity has its place, it can't build levees and conduct mass rebuilding operations.  The public sector must be both the guarantor of people's physical safety and the catalyst for restoration efforts, as no constellation of private charities is able to provide the same services.  I'm told that Katrina coverage was massive in Europe; I suspect it may have played a small role in the outcome of the German election.

Ultimately, I'm heartened that in countries like Norway, Germany, and New Zealand, those most likely to propose the free-market American model did not do as well as they had hoped.   Rather than rebuke the Kiwis, Norwegians, and Germans for their foolishness (as the Wall Street Journal does), we ought to remind ourselves that much of the rest of the world sees increasingly little to admire about our economic system.  Katrina exposed the depths of poverty in America to an unprecedented degree.   The freest capital markets in the world have done little or nothing for the poor of the Gulf Coast whose plight we have come to know so well.  When right-wing politicians abroad ask their citizens to give up generous social protections in order to imitate America, is it any wonder that many of them say, "no thanks"?  Or, in the German, "Nein Danke, wir haben eine bessere Idee..."

UPDATE: Larry Elliott in the Guardian says it better than I could:

What the inconclusive vote has shown is that the German people lack enthusiasm - to put it mildly - for the policies that have been pursued by Gerhard Schröder and would be pursued with even more vigour by Angela Merkel. The strong showing by Oskar Lafontaine's Left party is indicative of the deep suspicion German voters have of what to them smacks of a wholesale introduction of the neo-liberal US economic model.

Put simply, Germans don't buy the idea - touted by both Mr Schröder and Ms Merkel - that the way to safeguard Germany's post-war social democratic model is to dismantle it.

To that result, I say, "calloo callay."  And if the results aren't entirely frabjous from a socialist perspective, they aren't exactly nearly as frumious as lefties might have feared.

Comments

[Jay]

Please point out one time in the history of the world that socialism has actually worked. Maybe I'm just inexperienced (I am after all, only 20 years old), but I can't think of a single socialist state that hasn't or isn't currently falling apart.

Germany has massive unemployment. How is maintaining a social system in Germany going to happen if fewer and fewer workers have to pay for more and more services for more and more unemployed. This goes for most of the European Continent. The prescription of more of the same won't fix the problems that it caused. I hate to have to say it so bluntly, but capitalism works, every time it's tried. Socialism fails, everytime it's tried. Sometimes it fails because of bad planning, or corruption, or for some other reason, but it still fails. Only in Heavenly perfection could a socialist society work.

And who's fault is it that there was looting after Katrina? Who decided to loot? The looters! It is not required behavior to loot after a disaster hits. Just look at 9-11 and New York. 3000 people die on a Tuesday morning and no looting occurred.

Also, no one was abandoned in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Local and state government leaders in Louisiana (who happen to be Democrats) refused to ask the federal government for aid before the hurricane hit. Unlike their counterparts in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, these people waited until they were unable to do anything and then they started complaining that the federal government wasn't doing anything. However, where the local government dropped the ball, NGO's were taking care of business.

It may sound cruel, but it is NOT the job of government to fix things like hurricanes. When did the pioneers of the 1800's tell government to rebuild a town after a tornado hit? Government's job is to ensure security, oversee interstate commerce, and negotiate treaties with foreign powers. And taxes should reflect such. Do not tax me for some social program. Allow me to use that money through my church, or a local aid society. It has been documented and proven that every dollar given to charity for aid causes is far more effective than a dollar taken in tax for social programs.

Thank you for your patience with an idealistic young conservative.

[Hugo]

Gosh, I think that German democratic socialism HAS worked -- how do you define success? Employment is hardly an indicator. Millions of Americans work full-time for minimum wage jobs, and have a lower standard of living than unemployed Germans. Success means the greatest number of people enjoying reasonable living standards, access to health care, personal freedom, with a sense of community and social responsibility. On that score, most of Western Europe wins hands down.

And somehow, social democracies like Germany produce BMWs and Mercedes. Tough to argue that American capitalism produces consumer products of higher quality than that.

[Essi]

I am, by far, no expert on this issue... but Jay, when you talk of the failure of socialism, are you actually talking of communism? Russia, China, East Germany etc all tried communism, as far as I know, and yes that failed. However, all western European countries have implemented socialism in varying degrees (such as health care) and I would hardly call Europe as a whole a failure.

Capitalism is good, but I like my free school food, free dentist, free doctor, free university education etc and the general feeling that if something goes terribly wrong in my life, I will be taken care of.

[Adrienne]

Essi said:

"Capitalism is good, but I like my free school food, free dentist, free doctor, free university education etc and the general feeling that if something goes terribly wrong in my life, I will be taken care of."

Oh, for the love of Pete. None of those things are "free", although they might be "free" to you. Someone pays for those social programs, and it's all of us, through taxes. I don't mind if you truly believe that we should all face a higher tax burden to finance programs that apply only to small subsets of society, but at least be honest about what you're advocating.

And it is worth making the distinction between communism and social democracy--the latter is "working" in Western Europe, but Hugo still hasn't addressed how such systems will continue to "work" with birthrates dropping, workers taking earlier retirement, and comfy unemployment insurance discouraging people from taking jobs. Socially democratic systems can only continue so long as there is a strong economy and a growing tax base to finance those programs, and Germany has neither.

[djw]

What's frustrating is that people seem to think that sensible policy modifications that would probably have a positive impact on the German employment rate = dismantling the social protections Germany still has. Huh? No! There's lots that could be done on this front that are neutral on that front.

Jay, do you think FEMA should be dismantled? If not, how would you define their proper role?

[Hugo]

Adrienne, I think the answer is increased immigration, with the tricky proviso of making sure that there is complete cultural and social "buy-in" from those who immigrate. That's a toughie, I admit.

[djw]

What an awkwardly phrased comment. 'this front'=unemloyment rate, 'that front'=social protections.

[Hugo]

djw, I so often share that same anguish about an inelegantly phrased remark on another's blog. Thank God for being able to alter comments on my own blog!

[Essi]

Sorry, I didn't think it was important enough to make the distinction. I thought it was self-evident. But yes, "if you truly believe that we should all face a higher tax burden to finance programs that apply only to small subsets of society", I do strongly believe this. As a working person myself, I take comfort in the fact that with the taxes I pay, I am helping those less fortunate than myself, guaranteeing "free" university education to everybody regardless of financial status, making sure nobody is turned away at a hospital for lack of insurance etc. That is the sort of society I want to live in.

[Sally]

Someone pays for those social programs, and it's all of us, through taxes. I don't mind if you truly believe that we should all face a higher tax burden to finance programs that apply only to small subsets of society, but at least be honest about what you're advocating.

I actually wasn't aware that only small subsets of society used doctors and dentists. The only people I know who don't go to the doctor and dentist occasionally are those who can't afford to go.

[ARC: St Wendeler]

Well, the German experience since it became a unified state (talking about the 1800s, not 1991) hasn't been one that people can point to as exemplary of liberalism (in the classical sense, not in the statist leftism which is called liberalism here in the US). To that end, the Germans are very skeptical about individual rights and freedoms, as they give more importance to the Volksgemeinschaft.

And the economic growth rates of Germany (along with its unemployment rates) demonstrate that democratic socialism is not working in Europe. When employers are unable to make decisions regarding hiring and firing of their employees, they are sure to fall behind in the global economy and are reluctant to add new employees to their payroll. And Hugo leaves out this bit of John Fund's article:
"The lesson for America is do not go down the road as far as Germany has," says Horst Schakat, a German who created a series of successful businesses in California for 30 years but retired to his native land in 2001. "You may find yourself unable to go down a different but correct path once too many people have become dependent on the state."

And if you think "Democratic" Socialism works, I recommend that you pick up (and read) F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (or watch this show on CSPAN) which analyzes the movement towards Democratic Socialism that seemed to be imminent as the Allies were achieving victories in World War II. Planning an economy is the surest way to intrusions of all sorts into personal life and an erosion of liberties. Which is better? Allowing an individual (or a handful of individuals) make decisions regarding how best to run an economy? Or let the multitude of people make those decisions? As the saying goes, two heads are better than one... Leftists seem reluctant to just let things happen - You complain about Lobbyists and "special interests," but fail to recognize that the very existence of these lobbyists is a result of government's increasing involvement in economic matters - since they're seeking to influence government policy to their benefit.

Since the Linkspartei is such an extremist party (even the SPD has stated that they wouldn't form a coalition with them), it looks like a grand coalition will be the result, with a CDU Chancellor. Unfortunately, the status quo will continue for Germany and it is unlikely that the country will have any significant econommic growth in the near future.

Regards,
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy

[Hugo]

I read Hayek in college; I consider it and Ayn Rand's Fountainhead one of the two most destructive books of the 20th century!

[barb]

I second that last comment and just want to say Hugo: absolutely man! way to go, regarding your post (I haven't read thru the 1001 comments yet). This is indeed heartening news. That there are alternatives to cutthroat capitalism is something we don't see enough of in the neoliberal economic world order and I'm glad to see kinder, gentler, more compassionate social experiments happening in Europe. Good for them!

[ARC: St Wendeler]

ROTFL!!! I guess if your two favorite books (here and here?) were from the 19th Century, Ayn & Friedrich would be considered "destructive."

Perhaps we should have a little book burning party for you?!

:-)

Regards,
St Wendeler

[ARC: St Wendeler]

I second that last comment and just want to say Hugo: absolutely man! way to go, regarding your post (I haven't read thru the 1001 comments yet). This is indeed heartening news. That there are alternatives to cutthroat capitalism is something we don't see enough of in the neoliberal economic world order and I'm glad to see kinder, gentler, more compassionate social experiments happening in Europe. Good for them!

If the Germans think it's what they need, so be it... But I'll put my money on the US and the Anglosphere... There's one thing about socialism, "democratic" or otherwise - it's unsustainable.

Regards,
St Wendeler

[Hugo]

ABC, lf the Anglosphere includes Canada and New Zealand (and, to a lesser extent, the UK), I'll take it -- if we could have the kind of social insurance those states provide, I'd love it.

[BritGirlSF]

ARC, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but most of the "Anglosphere" practises some form of socialism. Canada? Huge welfare state, overall pretty socialist. Britian? Again, huge welfare state, public healthcare, subsidised higher education, currently run by the Labour Party. New Zealand? Welfare state again. I don't know much about Australia, so maybe that's your capitalist dream made manifest, but overall the english-speaking countries are pretty much socialist.
Also, your comment to Hugo about book burning was rather rude. If one is a fan of all things "Anglo" one should remember that one of the most notable English national charactristics is politeness.

[John]

Three things, Hugo. One is that there is a margin of less than 1 percent between the Parties, and 10% of the vote in absentee ballots and special votes to be counted. That could, and probably will, change everything.

Two, Although Labour is in a better position, their victory is by no means assured. Parliament is basically hung.

Three, even if Labour wins, they will have to hold together 5 parties who hate each other in a stable government for 3 years. Good luck with that. It could be a good one for us to lose. We'll be back in three years, even if not this time.

[Xrlq]

Gosh, I think that German democratic socialism HAS worked -- how do you define success?

How about my measuring the overall economy, which has grown by leaps and bounds here, while barely growing there in some years, not growing at all in others, and consistently performing at levels far worse than the "it's the economy stupid" economy that cost Bush I his job in 1992.

Employment is hardly an indicator.

Tell that to the 10% of the German population which is permanently unemployable. It's easy for a tenured prof who will never have to worry about his own job to say high employment rates are no big deal. It's a bit harder for those who might need to find a job when there aren't any.

Millions of Americans work full-time for minimum wage jobs, and have a lower standard of living than unemployed Germans.

Some do, most don't, but so what? A low-wage job can lead to a higher-wage job. Permanent unemployment leads to nothing.

Success means the greatest number of people enjoying reasonable living standards, access to health care, personal freedom, with a sense of community and social responsibility.

Strike "social responsibility" from the list, as that's just a code phrase for "socialism." Of course socialist governments are more "successful" at being socialists than non-socialist governments are, but adherence to a particular ideology does not success make. Europeans have far less personal freedom than Americans do, and much less reasonable living standards to boot. For all the poor people in New Orleans whose houses were damaged or destroyed in the hurricane, it bears noting that their German counterparts never owned houses in the first place. Health care is a wash, at best, in that their access is universal, but it's universally mediocre.

And somehow, social democracies like Germany produce BMWs and Mercedes. Tough to argue that American capitalism produces consumer products of higher quality than that.

Give me a break. That's like arguing that Castro's Cuba (or Batista's, for that matter) has a strong economy because their cigars sure do rock. To those two companies are relevant to this discussion at all, their relevancy lies in the fact that both companies were powerhouses long before your allegedly "successful" socialist state was created, and have survived socialism only because of the capitalist elements that remain (i.e., both are heavily taxed, but not so heavily as to prevent either from turning a profit). For an example of what true-blue socialism produces in the way of automobiles, try driving an East German Trabant sometime, assuming you can find one (AFAIK they're not even street legal anymore).

Old standbys aside, how many new companies has Germany created since the socialists took over? And how on earth do you explain the post-war Wirtschaftswunder that occurred in then-capitalist West Germany, but which never happened in East Germany, before or after reunification? If socialism had any merit, East Germany's economy should have trounced West Germany's from the beginning. If the SPD's "third way" quasi-socialism had any merit, former East Germany should have at least caught up by now rather than the entire country remaining stagnant.

Define success any way you want, but be consistent and straightforward and honest about it. Unless your definition of "success" is something along the lines of "adherence to my own ideological prejudices, results be damned" or "putting as many Germans as possible out of work, out of their homes and unable to afford more than one car per family," there is nothing remotely successful about any form of socialism, in Germany or anywhere else in the world. It's not a coincidence that the year I spent in Germany was the one that permanently cured me of my socialist views.

When right-wing politicians abroad ask their citizens to give up generous social protections in order to imitate America, is it any wonder that many of them say, "no thanks"? Or, in the German, "Nein Danke, wir haben eine bessere Idee..."

They might well say that, but then again, besser wissen is one thing, and Besserwisserei is another. Until their standard of living equals or at least approaches ours, and until the proportion of Americans wishing to emigrate to Germany approaches the proportion of Germans wishing to immigrate here, it's pretty clear who really weiß es besser, and who's just playing the Besserwisser.

[ARC: St Wendeler]

Yes, the Anglosphere includes those states... and India, Australia, etc. They all have varying degrees of social safety nets. The US is by no means a laissez faire economy or political entity. However, it is instructive to note that countries with higher degrees of government planning in their economies have lower rates of growth (or higher rates of losses) than those with lower degrees of government planning. As Hayek points out in his book, the issue is not whether one plans from the "left" or the "right"... it's the "planning" that is the problem. The multitudinous and personal decisions that are made in a free market are much more effective than impersonal decisions made by a government bureaucrat.

With regard to politeness, I don't think it's polite to say that ideas are "dangerous" and "destructive." It's interesting that a supposedly tolerant and open-minded "progressive" would find ideas "destructive." I didn't mean to cause offense, but I've rarely heard a book championing individual liberty to be described as destructive.

Regards,
St Wendeler

[Gregg]

Jay: Also, no one was abandoned in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Local and state government leaders in Louisiana (who happen to be Democrats) refused to ask the federal government for aid before the hurricane hit. Unlike their counterparts in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, these people waited until they were unable to do anything and then they started complaining that the federal government wasn't doing anything.

I'm British and even I know that's a bare-faced lie - the Governor of Louisiana asked for federal help before anyone else, declaring a state of emergency on 26th August, sending a detailed request for federal aid on 27th August, and supplementing that request on 28th August (when other Governors started asking for help). The President authorised that federal aid on 28th August, putting FEMA in charge. FEMA dragged its heels in setting up operations in Louisiana, though it wasn't similarly reluctant to set up operations in other states (could that be because, as you say, the Governor of Louisiana is a Democrat)? FEMA refused to allow the deployment of military personnel on relief operations until 31st August (even though, answering the Governor's request, they'd been setting up operations since 26th August and could have commenced food drops immediately on 29th August - FEMA insisted the military instead be given a law-enforcement role, compelling the Governor on 31st August to issue the necessary requests for that under the Posse Comitatus Act). And the White House refused to approve National Guard reinforcements, negotiated by the Gov. of Louisiana on 28th August, until 1st September.

[djw]

Hayek is far more interesting and complicated than (most of) his libertarian cheerleaders or left detractors allow...

[BritGirlSF]

Xrlq, I think you're failing to notice that socialism does not equal communism. Take a look at, say, Britain and then Russia to see the very clear differences. East Germany was not a socialist country, it was a communist one. The post-communist countries suffer from a whole host of problems that do not afflict the moderately socialist countries of Western Europe. You're comparing apples to kittens.
ARC, I suspect that most Indians would not appreciate being described as belonging to the "Anglosphere", even though the ruling class there does largely speak English in addition to Hindi, Urdu etc. Politeness again - it is generally considered appropriate to describe others in the terms they themselves would prefer to be used.
Gregg...agreed completely. The level of flat-out lying about what happened in Louisiana is quite striking.

[BritGirlSF]

By the way, ARC, I'm not trying to give you a lecture, but I have friends who are Indian who most definately would not appreciate being described as part of an "anglosphere". I know other Indians who would be fine with that description, but they are in the minority within their own country/culture.

[ARC: St Wendeler]

My reference to the Anglosphere isn't based on a cultural or ethnic issues. It's based on democracy and the enlightment that spread through the world primarily b/c of the Brits. My Indian friends use the term in discussions such as this, although they certainly don't consider themselves "brits."

RE Katrina - Except Blanco kept the Red Cross & their aid out of New Orleans and the Superdome. FEMA does not have any actual people, just 2500 bureaucrats that coordinate the efforts of the Red Cross & the Salvation Army. 4 days after the storm hit, Blanco was caught on CNN talking to her press person that she "should've called in the military."

The response to Katrina had a similar timeline to previous disasters, with a delay from FEMA of 12 to 24 hours. FEMA shows up to hand out checks and coordinate Red Cross & Salvation Army to relieve the first-responders (ie state/local),

Thanks,
St Wendeler