In recent discussions surrounding the authoritarian tendencies of modern Western states, particularly Germany, a pervasive narrative of fear has emerged that suggests a resurgence of fascism and National Socialism. Observers often attribute rising state repression to a vacuum left by absent constitutional protections reminiscent of the American Bill of Rights, highlighting a perceived failure to learn from historical totalitarianism. While there is a genuine desire for a world where the state does not impose arbitrary measures, the need for a nuanced understanding of state behavior is crucial. The common conception of “totalitarianism” is critiqued as a simplistic classification, predominantly developed by postwar liberal thinkers to contrast with rival ideologies. This eliminates a proper grasp of the current authoritarian tendencies, which may differ significantly from historical fascist regimes. Importantly, modern German authoritarianism emerges not from nationalist sentiments, but rather from a complex, antifascist ethos. Moreover, while the right to bear arms is debated as a potential remedy against state overreach, the author argues that a more profound solution exists, one that is often suppressed across both sides of the Atlantic.
The interpretations of liberalism form a significant part of this discussion, as many individuals who resonate with classical liberal values populate the author’s readership. Classical liberalism emphasizes freedom and equality, as well as the protection of individual rights against state authority. However, the author contends that many of the claims associated with classical liberalism are empirically flawed. The ruling elite’s long association with liberalism has altered its core tenets, leading to the rise of modern positive-rights liberalism. This newer ideology stresses social welfare and collective outcomes, often straying from the original classical ideals and manifesting in governmental actions that contradict its foundational principles. Consequently, this shift has provided justification for expansive state power, thereby complicating the understanding of the dynamics at play.
To comprehend contemporary authoritarianism, it is essential to view state power beyond the lens of liberal ideologies. What might superficially appear as a declining embrace of liberalism may in fact reveal deeper structural issues within the state apparatus itself. The apparent freedom enjoyed in the West compared to past experiences in Eastern Europe or under fascism is not solely attributable to liberal governance, but rather to various contextual factors that have allowed liberalism to flourish. The cravings for genuine freedom and autonomy necessitate a critical evaluation of what it means for a state to actually allow spontaneous personal liberty—amidst whatever prevailing ideology their rulers might espouse.
The inherent universalizing trait of liberalism presents complications in conceptualizing authoritarianism. As a universal ideology, liberalism makes bold claims across cultural and political spectrums, but its applicability is often overstated. The consequences of viewing non-liberal political systems exclusively through a liberal framework risk misrecognizing the multifaceted nature of global political thought. Additionally, liberal theorists tend to equate the absence of liberalism with authoritarianism, blurring distinctions between different political ideologies. While comparative analysis with totalitarian regimes might elicit important critiques of state hypocrisy, it fails to analytically interrogate the potential for authoritarian outcomes within liberal frameworks themselves.
The complexity of modern political systems requires acknowledgment of the diverse and often contradictory results of state actions within a so-called liberal polity. Real-world political outcomes may not always align with the liberal ideal, leading to authoritarian practices embedded in liberal governance mechanisms. For instance, provisions such as Germany’s “defensive democracy” reflect a structure that is inherently designed to combat perceived ideological threats, placing a cumulative burden on civil liberties in practice. At the same time, positive-rights liberalism enshrines broad social outcomes, which can result in authoritarian consequences contrary to its professed intentions. Extracting these outcomes from the ideological basis is essential for diagnosing the broader authoritarian manifestations in contemporary governance.
Moreover, ideology alone cannot account for the hierarchical nature of human civilizations, where power tends to coalesce within an oligarchic elite, regardless of the ideological banner they claim. In both authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies, political power tends to concentrate in a limited group distinct from the general populace. While liberal ideology may influence political behavior, its manifestations within realpolitik appear more nuanced and complex than adherents often acknowledge. This interplay between ideology and the realities of power dynamics underscores the limits of liberalism as a concept and invites deeper inquiry into the structures and systems that shape state authority. Thus, to understand the roots and manifestations of modern authoritarianism, it is critical to delve beyond ideological confines and explore the oligarchical nature of power assertion across political spectrums, ultimately reshaping how freedom and authority are conceptualized in the contemporary landscape.
