Government always needs criticism and opposition. But criticism doesn’t just mean affect-driven rejection, resentment or even dismissal of democracy and democratic rules and norms. Every criticism must be justified, ideally with a suggestion for how to do things differently and better. This distinguishes critical from uncritical, political from non-political thinking.
Simply saying “that’s stupid” or “I don’t want that” isn’t criticism, it’s just whining. You need to state clearly why it is that you consider something “stupid”, why it is that you do not want something to happen or be given credence, and what should count as valid instead. Most of all, you should be able to answer why you are thinking the way you do – given a thorough analysis of what is, and not what you feel should be. As participants in our democratic republic, we have a responsibility to each other, even if, or especially when we disagree.
Let’s look at some examples:
- On the rejection of the need for a moral foreign policy: Certainly a lot of moral handwringing about foreign policy sometimes sounds simplistic, perhaps naive. However, the central question that arises today is how the West has lost trust in its politics and its political model, and how it can be regained. We cannot preach values without practicing them. Which values? Democracy, rule of law, protection of minorities, rejection of wars of conquest, rejection of genocide (of actual, not just alleged genocide!), recognition of the responsibility of our colonial history, etc. What should be rejected from this? What else do we have to offer? What else sets us apart from competitors who don’t care about morals (People’s Republic of China, Russia, Iran, etc.)? The federal government could certainly justify everything in a much better way, but still: What exactly should be done differently? Should Russia be rewarded for its genocidal war of aggression? China for its oppression of Hong Kong, its genocide in Xinjiang and Tibet, its threats against Taiwan, its pandemic policies? Iran for supporting Hamas and the planned genocide in Israel (which began on October 7th)?
- On the rejection of the recognition of same-sex and transsexual people: Anyone who perceives themselves as homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, intersex or generally non-normative gender usually does not do so for ideological reasons, but because that is just who they are. This is an individual decision to live one’s life in a way that corresponds to one’s own identity and not to have to subordinate oneself to a forced gender binary (heteronormativity). When you’re in your early teens, you usually know “what” you are. Biology is not as binary as some claim – and gender always has a cultural component (“gender”, in contrast to “sex”, describes gender identity holistically as a mixture of biological realities and cultural patterns, while “sex” only has reproduction in mind). Specific problems such as trans women in women’s sports can be solved, for example, by introducing newer and better competitive categories (analogous to “weight classes” in boxing and westling). Unfortunately, the rejection and demonization of various gender identities still leads to a lot of suffering and violence – who wants to support such brutal discrimination? Many non-heteronormative people still have to hide from discrimination. Is this really something we want to support? Here, society must also take a concrete stand against homophobic and transphobic views and actions, regardless of which population group they come from.
- Racism: Yes, it exists, and no, not everyone is aware of it when they express racist thoughts. Anyone who grew up in a homogeneous environment has internalized certain stereotypes. That’s not necessarily evil, it just is. Our society has always been diverse. We have always been a “melting pot”, “salad bowl”, or whatever metaphor you may choose. “Race” does not exist in the biological sense – but racism is real. We all have a much more diverse ancestry than we sometimes think. Any American citizen is an American. A critical perspective towards exclusionary sayings and words is a question of politeness and philanthropy. Yes, that sounds “woke” – so what? It’s about nothing other than respecting your fellow human beings and nothing else.
- Asylum policy and refugee policy: Our borders are not open, but they are more permeable than planned. Naive “sanctuary” policies are indeed a problem, but none of this changes the fact that the West is attractive for refugees and immigrants – because of our democracy, our freedoms, our economic system, all of which promote social participation and economic advancement. Furthermore, our birth rates are too low, we need immigration. So rejecting immigration doesn’t solve any problems. But ignoring problems doesn’t help either: lack of housing, occasionally inadequate integration into our democratic value system, and yes, occasional crime – but all of this also is true of Americans who have already been here for a while. How do you solve this? Housing construction, education, better integration policy, combating all types of crime – and, yes, also development aid. Concrete problems need concrete solutions.
So much for that. Much of the rejection we hear is not concrete and effective enough to solve the problems that are being raised. We are just seeing an apolitical defensive reflex. Opposition must always remain concrete.
We have to think more politically, both theoretically and practically. Otherwise, we become comfortable in our feelings and resentments while democracy around us becomes weaker – but the alternative is not a better democracy, but the rule of those who reject democratic principles. You can see what this leads to in Russia and China – perhaps those who reject our current democratic system – whether they attack it from the left or the right – should consider this. Without democracy, without our separation of powers and checks and balances, rule of law, and all our freedoms and rights (and civic responsibilities), none of the criticism we are hearing would be possible either. Our democratic values are all we have to distinguish us from our adversaries – and we better be prepared to defend them, even through a better form of more concrete critique.
(A version of this article was also posted on philkneis.com in German – with some specific references to German politics.)
Erratic Attempts 