Single tragic events can rarely change history. Even more rarely can such events change history for the better. But this is nonetheless what may have happened on the night of Friday, October 10th, when the infamous Austrian right-wing extremist Jörg Haider died in a car crash on the eve of one of his greatest political triumphs.
Controversial from the start of his public career, Haider came to be known internationally–and beloved by many domestically–for his off-color remarks about the Nazi era. At a commemoration for veterans of the SS, Haider once remarked: “It is good that there still are decent people in our world who have a character which stands by its convictions even in the face of the strongest counter-current; people who have remained faithful to their convictions until the present day.”
This remark was not what in American political discourse is known as a gaffe. Quite on the contrary, it was part of a deliberate–and worryingly successful–strategy to exploit Austria’s deeply ambivalent relationship to its Nazi past for political gain. This strategy included coded references which in Austria’s political discourse were plain as day. Like, for example, Haider’s persistent invocations against the machinations of U.S.-based “East Coasters” (in plainer language: New York Jews).
Haider’s enjoyed a huge success in 1999, when, under his leadership, the populist FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria) became Austria’s second-strongest party in an upset election which shook the foundations of the country’s political establishment. The conservative ÖVP (Austrian People’s Party) agreed to a coalition government with Haider’s party. In protest, the then-14 EU countries reduced intergovernmental contacts with Austria to a bare minimum, and Israel recalled her ambassador.
But Haider’s most impressive triumph came as recently as September 28th. After breaking with the FPÖ–the party he himself had led and refashioned–in 2005, Haider founded his own movement, the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ). Building on his power base as the Prime Minister of Carinthia, Austria’s southernmost federal state, Haider, against the odds, turned the BZÖ into a national political force in its own right. At the recent national elections, his movement carried off 10.7% of the vote. Then, only few days before his sudden death, Haider celebrated an unexpected rapprochement with the FPÖ. Taken together, the populist movements either shaped or founded by Haider were once again Austria’s second-biggest political force–and seemed in a stronger position than ever.
The question, then, is: how will Austria’s–and Europe’s–far Right movements fare after Haider? Does his death matter? The tentative answer: yes. Far-right movements are a pan-European phenomenon. The strength of right-wing extremism is worrying in Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy, Germany, and even liberal Denmark. Yet such movements have (so far) failed to gain the kind of deep-rooted support in the population which assures voter loyalty beyond the demise of a totemic figurehead. The French voted for the charismatic Jean-Marie Le Pen more than for his disreputable Front National; similarly, the Swiss are seduced more by the magnetism of Christoph Blocher than by the policy platform of his Swiss People’s Party. Same goes for the Danish Pia Kjaersgaard and her Danish People’s Party. For all their strength, the European far-right movements continue to be dependent on their leaders. At a time when Le Pen is evidently beyond his prime and the very fact of their political success is increasingly giving Blocher and Gianfranco Fini (of Italy’s Alleanza Nazionale) the appearance of being old-style apparatchiks, this poses serious challenges to their movement. Haider, with the looks of a model and the easy charm of a ski instructor, probably was the European right’s greatest political talent. His death, tragic as it is, opens a strategic bracket of opportunity to anti-extremist forces in Austria and beyond.
The question is whether moderate parties will be able to seize upon this opportunity. Europe’s center-left and center-right have seemed, frankly, out of ideas in recent decades. Their lackluster politics-as-usual has been unable to retain the loyalty of their traditional electorates. On top of this, they have lacked a vision for how to combat the rise of worrying forces like those that found a voice in the BZÖ. Now, with much of the far right’s personnel in disarray or decline, Europe’s centrists have been handed a golden opportunity to wage a proactive battle for hearts and minds. Once another set of Haiders arrive on the scene, they will face, with any luck, a strong defense–and find it far more difficult to gain their former political purchase. It is up to the moderate political establishment to act now and convert this tragedy into a reason for guarded optimism.
It’s safe for Democrats to write thoughtful articles about the plan now that’s it’s safely passed. When do they ever do this when it could matter, that is, beforehand? Of course, in this case, the actual content of the measure was hardly known to anyone in advance, by design. Let’s hear it for 2009-style representative government.
I sense dim light bulbs flickering above heads throughout the liberal commentariat. Is the time coming when Obama will realize, like LBJ with Walter Cronkite, he’s lost even leftist toady hacks like Joe Conason and MSNBC’s brilliant lineup?
Jen, At what point does opposition to to a signed bill become futile. I suggest a call for civil disobedience. Those that oppose something so thoroughly repellent should fight to the last man to overturn this injustice.
But remember, Republicans only opposed this bill because they were engaging in the petty politics of obstructionism. How dare you suggest that there is any principled objection to this?!
Not sure what the civil disobedience would consist of. Lie down before the bulldozers on those “shovel-ready” projects? Our Mayor Daley won’t even reveal what his preferred projects are! (Doing so might cause sniping and contention.) Picket ACORN offices?
For the mortgage bill, civil disobedience is easier: Stop making your mortgage payments! (Too bad I already paid mine down.)
The idea in all this is to raise the level of government spending. Entitlement reform will permit Obama to declare that he is being fiscally prudent in addressing our long-term budget situation, by raising taxes. This will only seal a higher level of government at about 25% to 30% GDP (nationally) from the 17% to 20% we’ve seen in the last 20 years. They will raise taxes through entitlement reform, regulating carbon emissions, and allowing the AMT to run its course, guaranteeing us big government forever. They will never countenance real spending reforms or cuts. So we are in for anemic growth as the government sector expands (this due to lower productivity) and higher taxes. Not to mention no resolution of our entitlement situation, since Obama will also lay on top our entitlement mess universal health care, higher education, and pre-school! But this is what the American people voted for and no doubt Obama will remind us that this is the hope and change he campaigned on. In short, this bill will never be paid and will only get bigger and bigger to the detriment of our democracy.
Apparently never, in the case of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
#3, look at the Rick Santelli video. If there’s a Chicago Tea Party I am there.
#7, the difference is that the majority of all Congress and all Americans supported the Use of Force Against Iraq.
I would ask Jen to unpack her reference to inflating the debt away. Why is that ipso facto bad? The country is over-levered. We cannot pay our debts. Taxes won’t work because they shut down the economy and are thus a self-limiing proposition. No, some sort of default is the only option (which, I guess makes it not an “option” at all). The only choice, then, is whether to default explicitly (unthinkable, really) or implicitly by inflation. That latter option seems, in so many senses of the term, a no-brainer.
As for the new debt exacerbating the situation, that horse is already out of the barn. We are already over-levered as a nation. MORE debt is not a good thing, but if it is stimulative, it can reduce our national over-leveraging by increasing both the value of the collateral behind our debt and the profitability of the busnesses that owe it. But at the end of the day, if we cannot stimulate ourselves to a positive net worth, we will have to default, at least in existential terms, and inflation is the best way to do that. As a cure, it’s nowhere near as bad as the disease, Unless…
The only real risk in the inflationary solution is overshooting into hyperinflation. I don’t know what the metrics are that make that possible. I do know, though, that TIPS are just the visible part of the inflationary iceberg. The government cannot inflate its way out of bonds indexed to the dollar. Hopefully, we have not printed too many, and will not print any more. Otherwise, managed inflation won’t be an option, and because taxation is a self-limiting device, tazation won’t be adequate. In that case, I can’t see a way out.
A sales tax n every item that is not processed fruit & vegies.I
If nothing else it would slim people down.
20lbs of lard off every American because most cant cook. Might lose a few skinny celebs & even the Pres but Michelle will be fine. She can take over .
Think of the reduction in fuel in transport, heating ,even less fuell to cremate.
A winner….. just like the nation people have sucked up the good times & stored it in useless immoveable fab.
Don’t tell me, tell the people still trying to convince me it was an “illegal war.”