“They Hate our Freedom, Our Femocracy and Open Society as Such.”

In an interview for "liberal " magazine, FDP (Free Democratic Party) Chairman Christian Lindner spoke about the consequences of the Paris terrorist attacks, the internal and external enemies of freedom, and possible solutions to the refugee crisis. To Lindner it is crucial “to hold on to our beliefs even more firmly now”.
 

Mr. Lindner, it took Germany many years to actually refer to its involvement in Afghanistan as “war”. After the Paris attacks on the other hand, “war” was on everyone’s lips. Are we in a state of war?

No, we are not, because what happened in Paris was the work of murderers, not of soldiers. Those terrorists assail our western way of life. They hate our freedom, our democracy and open society as such. And they certainly do not flinch from murdering innocent, unarmed people. We must defend ourselves against Islamist sects.

The terrorists have a profound hatred of our freedom, but what about our own love of freedom?

The core of our Western way of life is our faith in each individual, in their personal responsibility, their enlightenment and reason. In reality, however, we tend to disregard these values and downright thwart them.
The massive bureaucratisation of our daily life replaces plain principles of the rule of law. Policy makers fiddle about with our economic reality through more and more government interventions, all too often causing harm. And tolerance and openness in our interactions with each other are on the verge of being undermined by anxiety and resentment.

What conclusions do we draw from that?

At a point in time when terrorists attack the very foundations of our society, when if not now do we find the courage and strength to profess anew our freedom and the inherent liberalism of our society? We counter those who wage war on our way of life, by holding on to our beliefs even more firmly now.

Doesn’t that also involve a general verbal moderation, e.g. in social media? Many have meanwhile made use of it, especially from the Pegida corner, resorting to hate speech that sounds all too close to that of terrorists...

Our freedom is attacked from different directions, from the outside by terrorism, as well as authoritarian regimes, but also from within, by the brutalisation of our culture of debate. And it is precisely those who warn against the alleged islamisation of the Occident (Pegida adherents carry this in their name) that are the worst defenders of our freedom. They seem to have no understanding of what enlightenment in the sense of Kant or Lessing’s Ring Parable means. We will not respond to any of the current threats to freedom by new resentments or by sealing off our society. That would be equal to surrendering freedom altogether.

After recent attacks, should we consider a worldwide alliance against terror? For example with Russia, which, given the developments in the country, would be tantamount to a moral balancing act...

First, the West itself, meaning Europe and the U.S., must achieve more unity. We also need to strengthen our fundamental European values because, looking at the developments in Poland, Hungary and Greece, we have serious reasons for concern. Europe has to pledge itself to human rights, the rule of law and market economy. Indeed, we also need a new beginning in our relationship with Russia, which could be a crucial partner in the fight against terrorism. This, however, does not mean accepting Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperialistic policy of limiting a state’s right to self-determination, as is the case with Ukraine. But we need to find our way back to engaging in dialogue.

That won’t be an easy task; the West will have to approach Putin...

Whoever wishes for change in Russian politics won’t go a long way by attempting to embarrass the Russian president. We should extend an invitation by means of new proposals and thus encourage Russia’s return to the European home, of course, abiding by all the house rules. The idea of free trade from Vancouver to Vladivostok could be revived.

Europe’s fragmentation becomes obvious through the way it deals with the refugee issue. But to begin with you, as a liberal, must be delighted that here in Germany it is civil society and not so much the state that contributes to overcoming the challenge.

Civic participation and the improvisation faculties among local communities have impressed all of us. Nevertheless, the State’s ongoing failure to tackle the refugee crisis cannot be compensated by society in the long run. Europe needs a common and coordinated refugee and asylum policy. As Europeans, we should also make a joint effort to improve the situation for refugees in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. That is our only way of somewhat mitigating the tremendous suction effect, especially towards Germany. But domestically, we also have to find our way back to a consistent application of the law...

...which, however, does not provide for immigration as such.

Unfortunately, that is true. Germany needs a liberal immigration law. Nevertheless we do differentiate between humanitarian responsibilities on the one hand and our legitimate interests with regard to labour force immigration on the other. The current debate mixes up the two. Asylum law, however, is no substitute for immigration legislation.

You advocate a model analogous to the one implemented with regard to Bosnian refugees in the 90s. This would mean that refugees would have to return to their country of origin as soon as this becomes possible. Inevitably, there will be hardship cases, especially among those who have been particularly well integrated. Does your model address the issue?

People who flee bombs and the consequences of war enjoy humanitarian protection here. We suggest enabling an EU law possibility in Germany applicable in the event of a mass influx, like the one we are indeed experiencing currently. It provides for the immediate issuance of residence permits and the rapid start of integration and support measures, without having to undergo lengthy asylum procedures, but only for as long as the threat persists. Our mistake in the ‘90s was that after rather lengthy procedures, people were given exceptional leave to remain and those without legitimate immigration perspectives were eventually sent back. Presently we need to combine the two: immediate, non-bureaucratic and more humanitarian protection, along with adequate integration measures. Those who wish to remain after the threat is over and are willing to integrate or are already well integrated should be given options to do so.

This was actually the FDP’s position back in the day...

Yes, in 1997, Peter Caeser, liberal Minister of Justice of Rhineland-Palatinate at the time, tabled a draft immigration law in the Bundesrat, which failed. Currently, we have an historic opportunity to fill that gap. But the Grand Coalition remains passive on the matter. We demand the drafting of a new immigration law, not someday, but now. Following Canada’s model for example, on the one hand it would open up channels for legal immigration to Germany, but also give people who are already here better perspectives, regardless of the threat they face. Migrants’ qualifications and readiness to integrate, as well as our own understandable interests would be the decisive factors. Germany depends on qualified immigrants.

As easy as it was for civil society to alleviate the immediate plight of refugees, so difficult it will be for the State to provide housing for them, as well as placements in schools...

The Federal Chancellor spoke of German flexibility. However, it should not remain limited to administrative procedures alone. We need to consider this seriously in broader terms. Should we opt for more flexibility and self-initiative, it won’t be only immigrants who benefit, we all will.

In our current issue we cover the subject of infrastructure in Germany extensively. Or, in more caustic terms, what is left of it. The fact is, a lot has been dwindled away. Is this an issue for the FDP?

Indeed it is, and not only with regard to transport infrastructure. Roads, just like railways and waterways, are in a deplorable state. Due to the forthcoming regional elections, I have been travelling a lot lately, mainly in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt and Baden-Württemberg. But the issue also involves our future infrastructure - digital networks. If you land in Stuttgart and then drive to Heilbronn, you won’t be able to use the phone without network disruptions. As a result of digitalisation, a fundamental change within the global economic order is underway. A world market leader in the Swabian Alps is just as affected by it as anyone else. If there is no access to worldwide market places; if we, as private users have no access to the new opinion-shaping hubs, we will simply be outdistanced. This key infrastructural task is not yet sufficiently addressed in national public finance.

Investment rates are dropping; there are many bureaucratic obstacles, for example for public-private partnerships...

We could indeed mobilise more private capital for infrastructure investment. Here is my concrete proposal: about two trillion euros is deposited in life insurance and pension funds. Due to national investment provisions this money is spent primarily on concrete or government bonds. The two still enjoy special treatment as allegedly risk-free, although nobody could assume that any longer in the wake of the euro crisis. The motives are obvious. The government wants to continue financing state beneficence on credit. But what if part of this investment capital, let’s say about one or two percent, flows into profitable infrastructure measures or highly innovative start-ups? We are talking about 20 to 40 billion euros per year; this means a real investment boost, benefiting both the national economy and those individual savers who are currently suffering from artificially low levels of interest rates.

The state beneficence you mentioned also includes retirement at 63 – nowadays few benefit from it, future generations will have no benefit whatsoever. The baby boomers were asked to save up for old age. But now they wonder, how that is supposed to work, without interest. Is this incongruity still rectifiable?

Introducing retirement at 63 was a grave mistake. It is a ‘set-aside premium’ for experienced professionals. And it is simply unjust, given that only one generation profits. Basically, the younger generations pay the bill, as do those who have already retired incidentally, because their pension increases are currently lower than they would otherwise have been. We need a new foundation for retirement provisions.

So go back to job hunting?

It’s all about flexibility. Instead of a rigid retirement age, we should introduce tailored solutions for the individual. The possibility to choose when to retire would do justice to human individuality. If one can live on their pension, they should be free to decide on their retirement date; of course, taking into account exact mathematical deductions, without red-tape and from a certain point on, with employer contributions for unemployment and pension insurance paid out to the employee. Why not pave the way for more self-determination?

Should one broach the subject of taxes with an FDP Chairman?

Actually, one must! For, although it is a rather urgent matter, no one except the FDP is eager to address the issue. Why? Because low interest rates have a vast redistribution effect and it is the State alone which profits from it. The double-digit billions in saved interests almost make up for Wolfgang Schäuble’s entire national budget. But in the end, it is depositors, who go without their interest income, that pay the bill. It would be a matter of fairness for the State to at least make restitution of its funding advantage to citizens. But still, nothing happens. Instead, the State enriches itself through the fiscal drag on salary increases, the solidarity surcharge will be paid who knows when and a massive increase of the inheritance tax, to be borne by the middle class and the millions of jobs in that segment, is currently in discussion. On top of that comes the abolition of the flat rate withholding tax. We are talking about nothing other than a massive tax increase for everyone who pays more that 25 percent taxes.

Massive, but hidden. Infrastructure deficiencies and the refugee issue will surely provide an arguably ideal occasion for all who favour additional tax increases to soon demand them openly...

I am afraid so. We are witnessing a rapid increase in public revenues, our export economy benefits from the artificially low external value of the euro, the baby boomers still participate fully in economic life – such a favourable economic environment is unlikely to come about a second time, at least not in my lifetime. When, if not at such a moment as this, should the State make do with its own funds, invest adequately and, moreover, refrain from further burdening its citizens? We should hold a moratorium on new government tasks and public spending.

A commitment by the State to moderation?

Yes, but ever since 2013 we have been experiencing the exact opposite – a kind of ongoing Thanksgiving. Distributing and celebrating are high on the agenda. No additional calls for new spending made by Ministers Gröhe, Nahles and Schwesig have been rejected so far. However, no funding can be provided on a serious basis for the related expenditures. Presently, as we see the first signs of crisis, we discover that there is no risk buffer; all spending is entirely at the expense of future investment. This is unacceptable. Investment should become a priority again and we need to strengthen the private sector.

Now what about the FDP: The time for navel-gazing, after the defeat in the 2013 Bundestag elections, seems to have come to an end. Even the media concerns itself more intensively with the Free Democrats’ agenda rather than the mood within the party...

The FDP has freed itself – from thinking small and from the anxiety over what others could say. Instead of being opportunistic, we have increased the dosage of liberalism. We highlight the importance of education policy, because it is a central precondition allowing people to shape their own lives. In terms of economic policy, we focus on the sustainability of the State and on ensuring fair competition. And of course, we also pay close attention to the subject of civil liberties. This is the big issue of our time in view of a debate which places greater emphasis on justified security interests in general and with no proportionality assessment, rather than private autonomy and our right to a protected personal sphere.

The FDP has often been accused of being in truth merely an economic party, which would not consolidate free trade and civil rights. The prominent new party entrants are quite interesting in that respect – captains of industry and former members of the Pirate Party...

Freedom as a principle works only when you combine social and economic freedoms. The new entrants attest to the fact that we have succeeded in underlining the unity of the two. When two former Pirates chairmen, Sebastian Nerz and Bernd Schlömer, join our ranks because they feel the FDP is serious with regard to positively structuring digitalisation and our civil liberties, and when at the same time two leading figures of the German economy join the party, namely Jürgen Hambrecht and Hans-Georg Näder from Otto Bock, then we can only draw the conclusion that we are on the right track. The fact that we recognise liberalism not merely as a thematic channel, but as a comprehensive approach, is also highlighted.

Interview: Boris Eichler
Source: liberal Magazine
Article in German: here