In state elections in Saxony and Thuringia, AfD, the Alternative for Germany party, has scored a dramatic success. The Telegraph reports:
Exit polls predict the anti-immigration party has gained some 33% of the vote in Thuringia, with the conservative CDU party polling at around 23%.
However, in the state of Saxony, the AfD is projected to narrowly lose to the CDU, with about 30 per cent of the vote to the CDU’s 31.5 per cent.
But AfD’s success is deplored by all right-thinking Germans:
The AfD are unlikely to be able to form a government, as other parties have ruled out joining a coalition with them.
Why?
Germany’s far-Right AfD party is on course to become the strongest party in a German state parliament since the Nazi era.
The press, even relatively moderate outlets like the Telegraph, call the AfD “far-right” and try to tie the party to the Nazis. Does that make any sense? You can read the AfD manifesto here. In American terms, I would describe the AfD platform as centrist. I don’t agree with everything in it, and some members of the party may well be objectionable in one way or another. That would not be surprising, given that opposition to mass immigration has been banned from mainstream parties and from polite discourse.
But far-right? Reminiscent of the Nazis? That is ridiculous.
Fascists want high taxes, high government spending, and government control over the economy and pretty much everything else. AfD’s platform calls for the opposite:
We want to reform Germany. This is not possible without a comprehensive reform of tax laws. We advocate a simpler and fairer taxation system, which primarily reduces the tax burden of middle and low-income earners.
***
We want to limit the power of the state over the citizen. To this end, duties of the state should be reduced, as well as state access to the incomes and assets of its citizens. The AfD does not want to burden its citizens with more taxes and duties. Analogue to the German debt ceiling, we want a mandatory ceiling on taxation and duties to be incorporated in the German Constitution. This will define the maximum permissible tax rate as a percentage of the gross domestic product.
Also:
Free market competition produces the best economic results. The unsubsidised supply of goods and services, which is most beneficial to buyers and sellers alike, is always set to win the day. Therefore, the AfD contends that the stronger the competition, and the lower the ratio of government expenditures to gross national product (state spending ratio), the better it is for everyone. Indeed, competition gives people the freedom to develop, to grow and to act self-reliant, to acquire private ownership of goods and means of production, to enter into contracts under their own responsibility for their own benefit and for the common good, to choose between different suppliers, products, services or jobs, and to take advantage of profitable opportunities, but also to take responsibility for potential failure.
In some ways the AfD platform is more liberal than I would like, but on some issues, like energy, it is excellent–much better than any party platform in the U.S. But the “far right” AfD is anathema to establishment Germans. Because in Germany, as throughout Western Europe, “far right” simply means skeptical of mass third world immigration.
How radical is the AfD platform on immigration? You can read it for yourself, but I would describe it as sensible and realistic.
In view of its geographic location, its history, its people and its dense population, Germany is by no means a classic immigration country, least of all a target of mass migration as seen in 2015. In spite of this, migration into Germany has occurred for decades. Germany has turned into an immigration country without any legal framework. Canada and Australia set good examples of how these countries manage immigration with social and employment considerations in mind.
I couldn’t agree more. I would be delighted if the U.S would adopt Canada’s immigration laws, and then enforce them.
The German “maverick approach”, however, has promoted immigration into the German social security systems and the low-wage sector, but not into the qualified job market. We want to change this: We demand a paradigm shift regarding 1) the influx of asylum seekers, 2) the way how the free movement of people is handled inside the EU, 3) the immigration of skilled labour from third countries, and 4) the integration of immigrants belonging to these three categories.
The AfD platform is realistic with regard to the mass influx of “refugees”:
For this reason, current German and European asylum and refugee policies cannot be continued as in the past. The ill-fitting term “refugee” used for all the people who enter Germany irregularly with the aim to stay here forever, is characteristic of this misguided policy. It is necessary to make a distinction between political refugees and people fleeing from war on the one hand, and irregular migrants on the other. It is the AfD’s view that true refugees should be granted shelter as long as there is war in the countries of origin. Irregular migrants, who are not persecuted, have no right to claim protection, contrary to refugees. Once the reasons for fleeing, such as an end to wars, or political and religious persecution, no longer applies, shall residence permits of refugees be terminated. These refugees need to leave Germany.
As things stand, Germany’s ruling “conservative” party will rather form a government with the left-wing (but also immigration skeptic) BSW party, which polled only a small percentage of the AfD totals, rather than with AfD.
For years, Europe’s political and cultural elites have tried to rule opposition to mass third world immigration out of bounds, ostracizing leaders and parties who object to their obviously failed immigration policies as “far right.” But despite their views being suppressed by nearly every means short of incarceration, it is evident that those parties represent the majority opinion on immigration in most western European countries. As the immigration crisis continues to worsen, their views can no longer be ignored.
