And Grass supports Hartz IV, he doesn’ think (as Brad says) that people who support it are totalitarians. http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/news/2004/10/03/hartz__prominente/hartz__IV__prominente.html

So everything- literally every single solitary word- that Brad wrote is incorrect. Not wrong as a matter of opinion but factually, demonstrably, objectively incorrect. This professor gets a zero.

@Edward: I agree with you that in this era it would be most welcome if guys like Grass showed more sense of internationalism. But of course Grass himself is not the issue here. It is the extend of “resonance that these kind of arguments are now finding across Germany”.

Here in the Netherlands we had several instances of managers almost doubling their income in the same timespan the workforce of the company was decreased with hundreds or thousands of workers.
I don’t think the Netherlands is exceptional here.
There is your resonance. It is national. Populists of every flavour can (and do) add a nasty kind of nationalism to it.

Last remark before I start to write a more elaborate post on this subject on my own blog: the focus (imo) should be on the impotence of the political process not on “steering by the banks and multinationals”. A bank nor a multinational is a subject doing steering; certainly bankS and multinationalS are not.
*Capitalism* or *Globalisation* not at all. These are just concepts; vague ones too.

It is also worth remembering that some of the followers of the “generation of 68″ that Grass holds so high spent much of the next decade terrorising Germany, Italy and France – Baader Meinhof, Red Brigade, Action Direct etc. That, at the extreme end is where it can all lead.

Just to make clear, I’m not sneering at anyone, and I’m not trying to offer a general appraisal of Gunter Grass either as a writer, or as often-time champion of those less fortunate than him.

I am simply voicing my concern, and in a language that is somewhat more moderate than that which Brad has used, about where all this rhetoric is leading. Germany – which is relatively rich – is having a hard time. But parts of the world which has long been having a hard time (and I mention explicitly Eastern Europe since the inhabitants of EE were amongst the main losers of the war whose end we are commemorating these days) are doing better. Factories are being built, and work is arriving, and this is the part of the picture which Grass seems to miss.

I think the kind of alarmism to be found in his article, and the disdain for the real qualities of parliamentary democracy which he demonstrates, are frankly dangerous, and whatsmore, offer no orientation for German society in confronting both the difficulties *and* the opportunities which the future offers.

So, Grass does not agree with Hugh and Grass has no compassion for those less fortunate. Duh. I suggest there is more to be seen in India than just you see. I do not question your concern, so why do you sneer at Grass? When you have stood for compassion as long as Grass, I trust you will be dealt with more kindly.

The ambivalence about parliamentary democracy which Brad detects is nothing new in postwar German politics, nor is it especially surprising that Grass should be airing this ambivalence.

I think though that it is not the SPD which is public enemy no1 in Grass’s book, but rather what he would probably call the ‘Finanz Capital’ which, on his view, renders the politicians impotent and leaves ‘the people’ defenceless. Viz:

“Parliament is no longer sovereign in its decisions. It is steered by the banks and multinational corporations – which are not subject to any democratic control”.

None of this is especially new. What is new, and Tobias is certainly right to be drawing our attention to this, the resonance that these kind of arguments are now finding across Germany. Something important is happening.

Finally, I still find this incredible:

“We all are witnesses to the fact that production is being demolished worldwide, that so-called hostile and friendly takeovers are destroying thousands of jobs, that the mere announcement of measures like the dismissal of workers and employees makes share prices rise, and this is regarded unthinkingly as the price to be paid for “living in freedom”".

Whatever happened to the ‘internationalism’ of the left here? Production is not being demolished worldwide. We are witnessing the historic rise out of poverty of hundreds of millions of people: in China, India, Brazil, Turkey etc. Production is not being demolished in Hungary, Poland and the Czech republic. Some West European societies are having to make uncomfortable adjustments in part due to changing demography, and in due to a long overdue transition from industrial to service economies. Where is Grass’s sense of proportion, sense of reality, and above all, where is his compassion for those who are less fortunate?

Sozialmarktwirtschaft is under pressure today, and rightly so. It was perhaps a good model for Germany in the second half of the last century; in the C21st this model is clearly holding Germany back. Unfortunately politicians with an eye on the popular vote, backed up by rants from people like Grass with an eye on increased book sales, are trying to hold on to it as if it were some sacred object.

The defeat of the British opt-out on the working time directive yesterday in the European Parliament is typical of this kind of mentality; one could go further and say it is indictative of an increasingly prescriptive and authoritarian tendency on the part of the Brussels clique ….. Whatever happened to unity through diversity? Clearly that is only OK so long as it is on their terms.

Grass is old and in the way along with his nostalgia for the “generation of 68″, in much the same way as Chirac and Schroeder are in trying to hold on to a vision of the European Union that is no longer relevant in a larger EU that must compete in the global market of the C21st. I wouldn’t call Grass “crypto nazi scum” rather I would call him misguided and out of touch with the reality of modern economic life. Sadly there are today more than a few self appointed lobbyists like Grass about, not to mention politicians of a like mind in positions of power. The result may very well be a divided European Union, not only would that be a pity it would also be a step backwards.

I have been reading a lot of the comments on various blogs about these discussions. I agree with most commentators that Brad is wrong on most of the issues he raises about Grass.

However, I think deep down he is right on a central issue but he expressed this very poorly.

If you look over the arguments why democracy is a good form of government, there are two basic lines of reasoning:

- Democracy is good because it expresses the “will of the people” ( Rousseau is, AFAIK, an early example )
- Democracy is good because it stops government from becoming a tiranny and generally limits government wrongdoing ( mostly Anglo-Saxon philosophers from the 17th century on)

The first line of reasoning makes for fine Sunday speeches, but it sees Democracy in an idealistic fashion and basically identifies Democracy with free elections.
The second line is less attractive and accepts a l?t of the messy compromises that happen in any practical democracy. It also provides the underpinning for division of powers etc. I think actually, it is the more robust underpinning for a democratic constitution. This applies, BTW, to teh German Grundgesetz which was based on this thinking, in light of the then-recent experience of Nazi rule.

The first line does not rule out a “Tyranny of the majority” and “The will of the people” actually has been used to justify tyrannies from the French revolution onwards. But it is certainly not exclusive to the Nazis and somebody who uses the argument should be called that simply because of this argument.

Grass’ way of arguing is based more on the first line of reasoning than on the second, and I think that this is a major reason why Brad takes issue with him.

Still, I repeat, I thought Brad was over the top.