Hacker News Reader

Comment by jansan | Hacker News Reader

In Germany there is the term "inner emmigration", if people oppose to the current system, but keep silent in fear of repression. This was coined during Nazi time, but also used to describe part of the opposition during socialism in East Germany.

What it basically describes people who:

- are opposed to the current political system (originally the Nazi regime)

- cannot speak their opinion for fear of repressions

. cannot or do not want ot leave their country

- do not want to adapt to the political system

Currently we have inner emmigration among conservatives. It is almost impossible to speak out as a conservative without fearing consequences. People are not revolting, but they are bascially done with the political system.

View on HN

That's most certainly not true for Germany, at least if we are talking about German definitions of conservatism. A lot of GOP members are more close to what in the German political system would be seen as the extreme right, arguably bordering on the autocratic right.

There is representation of the conservative voice both in media and the political system. There is repression, both informal and in the legal code, of Neonazi speech.

Don’t you guys have crosses on government buildings? https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/europe/bavaria-germany-crosse...

Didn’t Angela Merkel reject “multiculturalism?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14...

Don’t you have religious education in public schools? https://www.dw.com/en/in-german-schools-opt-out-of-religion-...

Isn’t abortion still technically illegally in Germany? https://www.dw.com/en/activists-in-germany-demand-legalizati.... And as a practical matter, German abortion law would be unconstitutional for multiple reasons under our Roe v. Wade.

Part of why the American GOP has gotten so wacky is that over the past 50 years American liberals have wiped social conservatism out of the public sphere in a way that doesn’t seem to be the case in Germany. In the US, saying what Merkel did that “multiculturalism is a failure” would get you branded a Nazi. Not even Trump would say that. Saying that abortion should generally be illegal after 12 weeks gets you lumped in with religious fundamentalists.

This is due to two features of the American political system. First, our courts have taken it upon themselves to adjudicate social issues that are in Europe handled by the legislature. Second, our social conservatives are split into different parties along racial lines. The Democratic Party is a coalition, but white liberals firmly control the social platform. Biden has promised to appoint a Black women Justice. Statistically speaking half of Black women oppose same-sex marriage. Do you think there is any chance Biden will appoint a socially conservative Black woman?

If the American political system was as meaningfully accommodating of social conservatism as the German one (and I think that would require getting our courts out of the business of being social moral arbiters) I think you’d see a lot more normalcy.

Oof, I won't go into details, but you got a couple of things wrong about Germany.

First, the crosses on gov't buildings are specific to Bavaria. As the USA, Germany has a strong federal constitution which allows the states some lee-way. Furthermore the German Constitutional Court has ruled crosses in schools must be removed if parents object, a ruling that was partially overruled by the ECHR.

Second, Merkel's remarks were rather specific to a form of living together without an overarching attempt at having and enforcing core values. She did not reject other cultures or beliefs. I doubt her position would be controversial in a country with the "e pluribus unum" as part of the brand identity, but I can't really say as I don't know the USA too well.

IDK about the assessment that liberals destroyed social conservatism in the USA as it is again not my country. But from over here, it really seems like the GOP went into a tail-spin over the last decade, maybe even since Reagan. In Germany, due to our voting system, the conservative party is as much a coalition as the Democrats in the USA while the left is more splintered.

I'd say if you wanted to have a less extremist conservative party, you'd need to get rid of the FPTP voting system: it would allow the GOP to jettison the right-wing extremists and seek a ruling coalition while fighting the Democrats for centrist voters/moderate conservatives.

But if the liberals really forced the GOP into becoming a assembly of lunatics, hats off, they did a great job. I somehow doubt it, though...

> First, the crosses on gov't buildings are specific to Bavaria. As the USA, Germany has a strong federal constitution which allows the states some lee-way. Furthermore the German Constitutional Court has ruled crosses in schools must be removed if parents object, a ruling that was partially overruled by the ECHR.

That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Court upheld the practice in general, reasoning that it was an expression of Germany's heritage as a Christian nation. It then balanced that principle against the potential burden on religious minorities, to fashion that compromise.

In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country. More important, there is generally no balancing between the cultural expression of the majority and the interests of the minority. That's a huge difference between American and German constitutional law. In German constitutional law, there is a strong balancing of minority rights against the effect of certain things on the majority. In American constitutional law, almost zero weight is given to how recognizing a minority right (such as the right to be free from feeling excluded by seeing a cross in a school house) might affect the cultural expression oof the majority.

> Second, Merkel's remarks were rather specific to a form of living together without an overarching attempt at having and enforcing core values. She did not reject other cultures or beliefs. I doubt her position would be controversial in a country with the "e pluribus unum" as part of the brand identity, but I can't really say as I don't know the USA too well.

Merkel appears to be using the term according to its typical meaning. "Multiculturalism" means you have a country with people of different cultures living together, without an attempt to impose unifying core values. And rejecting multiculturalism in that sense is controversial. Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, was attacked as a racist recently for saying the same thing. He didn't "reject other cultures or belies." As far as I can tell, he and other American conservatives use the phrase to mean exactly the same thing as Merkel does.

> In Germany, due to our voting system, the conservative party is as much a coalition as the Democrats in the USA while the left is more splintered.

It's not just the voting system, it's the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed social liberals to impose policies without any coalition building, and even without building public consensus. On abortion, for example, no state is allowed to make abortion illegal before viability (20-24 weeks). This is enormously unpopular in the US (under 30% support). And presumably it's unpopular in Germany, where there is a 12-week limit absent special circumstances.

I'm just trying to paint for you a picture of why conservatives in the U.S. might be frustrated, by reference to how things are in Germany. Keep in mind, though, that Americans are much more conservative than Germans to begin with! Less than 10% of Germans pray daily. For Americans, it's 50%, similar to Turkey!

Germany obviously makes political concessions to Christians and social conservatives. There is (opt-out) religious education in schools, abortion is limited mainly to the first trimester, and there are things like waiting periods and counseling.

This is a really important point I'd appreciate your giving serious consideration to: How would CDU members feel, today, if the German Constitutional Court suddenly decided there could be no religious education in schools, that abortion had to be legal to 24 weeks, etc? How do you think people in Germany would have reacted to those things had they happened in the 1950s-1970s, like happened here?

Take it a step further. The year after Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage in the US, the ECHR ruled there was no right to same-sex marriage in the European Convention on Human Rights. How do you think CDU members would have taken having the ECHR impose that on Germany? How do you think Poland or Italy would have taken that? As I recall, by the time Germany legalized same-sex marriage in 2017, 80% of Germans already supported it. How do you think Germans would have felt had the EHCR legalized same-sex marriage in Germany back in the 2000s when under 50% of people supported it? (I think Americans are probably 10 years behind Germany on that issue.)

Heck, Angela Merkel voted against same-sex marriage in Germany after Trump ran on accepting it a year earlier. In the US that vote would have caused the press to go completely apoplectic.

>That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Court upheld the practice in general, reasoning that it was an expression of Germany's heritage as a Christian nation. It then balanced that principle against the potential burden on religious minorities, to fashion that compromise.

It's more difficult and I really, really won't go into details because there are several conflicting legislations (state vs. federal), court cases and I honestly don't understand law deeply. The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation.

>In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country.

Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that.

I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe, and I am not even talking about the time before 1945. That's why the incomplete separation of church and state in Bavaria, the call for traditional German values as the cultural mold by politicians from Merkel's party or the abortion laws are totally not surprising.

You might also be unaware of that, but civil liberties have to a great extend been forced down the throats of German politicians and conservative voters alike by the German Constitutional Court. E.g.

- gay marriage,

- equal rights for non-married couples and for kids conceived out of wedlock,

- (some) equal rights for women,

- freedom of speech,

- freedom of the press,

- the high rank of privacy laws

- restriction on out of area operations for Bundeswehr (requires Bundestag vote)

- disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR)

- giving up the Mark for the Euro

- enshrining a lower bound for welfare payments that is binding to all of Germany. This is no longer a privilege but a right on the level of constitutional rights.

Likewise, the liberals had to swallow some unpopular rulings, e.g. the one forbidding abortion but decriminalizing it in the first 12w, essentially something conservatives won (the contested law allowed up to 24w). I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times.

The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon. The only party that questions that consensus is the extreme right (historically also the Marxists but those don't play a role anymore, and the rest of the far left has made peace with the court). But then, we are in the sunset phase of the Merkel years, so maybe the CDU will do a GOP and let themselves held captive by the alt-right.

But the conservative brand we got over here is able to see the value of compromises and after some time is able to move on, whereas in the USA it seems to me that moderate conservatives have died out and been replaced by what we consider extremists. And yet, they find voters because there is no moderate alternative.

> The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation.

Which ECHR ruling are you referring to? My understanding of the ECHR precedent on this is that displaying a cross in schools is permissible under the 2011 Lautsi decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

> It granted that, "by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-schools classrooms – a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity – the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment." But it declared: "That is not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on the respondent State's part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1". It added that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and ... cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities".

> Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that.

I'm pretty sure American Christians would happily take "in God we trust" off the currency in return for religious education in public schools, as is the case in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy.

> I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe

I'm aware of that. My wife lived in Germany for a while. That's why I'm using Germany as an example, to illustrate how another socially conservative democracy works. The United States is even more conservative, more comparable to Poland or Turkey than Germany.

> - gay marriage

The German Constitutional Court decision on same-sex marriage, like the abortion decision, was precisely the opposite of what happened in the U.S. In the case of same-sex marriage, the Bundestag legalized it (over Merkel's objection). The Constitutional Court then held that the Constitution allowed for legalization of same-sex marriage. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-german-gay-partnership-l.... In the U.S., it was the opposite. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required legalization of same-sex marriage.

> - disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR)

The mildness of the German Constitutional Court decision illustrates what I'm talking about. Germany required schools to remove the cross if someone complained. In the United States, the Supreme Court eliminated religion from schools completely, in a blanket fashion. (And it happened 70 years ago!) American public schools can't even offer religious instruction, while German schools are required to offer it (unless the parent opts out).

- giving up the Mark for the Euro

Again, this was a scenario where the German Constitutional Court deferred to the legislature.

> I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times.

On social issues, it consistently sides with liberals. This is due to the dynamics of the legal profession, where the conservatives tend to be what people call "coastal elites." They are economically conservative, but often relatively liberal socially. For example, while abortion remains technically illegal in Germany, I count only 3 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (which would not make abortion illegal, but simply allow Americans to adopt an abortion law like Germany or France).

> The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon.

How much of that comes from the fact that the German Constitutional Court tends to be deferential to the society's conservatism?

My guess is that the fallout of the right wing's promised "tickle down" economics and the neoliberal politics of thatcherism is making people angry.

I think it is more the obvious ubiquitous hypocrism. Everybody is anti racist and anti sexist, but blames the white man. Looting and burning buildings is ok, as long as the ideology behind it fits the narrative. Everybody is anti fascist, but if you have a different opinion you will get fucked up. Who in his right mind wants to argue with this bullshit?

I used to think this. I used to watch a lot of media from youtube creators that were previously part of the atheism movement and gradually transitioned into right wing content. Once I started also consuming media from people on the left, I found that this was a caricature designed to prevent me from listening to people on the left that did have good points.

Yes there are extremists that like to shout, but they are in the minority or a person in riled up circumstances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com