To paraphrase a famous quotation of the Chemnitz stone condyle could bring the role of the public reaction to the financial crisis to the point: the whole policy of market liberalization and social reforms of recent years was the biggest political mistake of modern times. Jürgen Habermas is not the only, but a still more powerful theorist who celebrates the financial crisis really and proclaims the end of an era of neoliberalism, which – especially in the U.S. – “has become a practical force,” as he it has expressed in his recent interview with TIME. There is to be found – as in previous editions of TIME – a kind of reckoning with the neoliberalism, which is presented not as a model of a free society, but rather as a submission model.
According to statements by Habermas in his interview with TIME, 6 11th 2008 Liberalism says the following:
the “life world of unrestrained surrender to the imperatives of the market”, Child poverty, levered out of the core functions of the state as a result of a “privatization craze” The “sell off the remnants of the deliberative public policy to yield-enhancing financial investors,” generally a disregard of culture and education in that it “depends on the interests and whims of sensitive economic sponsors” should be made of, the advocacy of a “snack culture of a nationwide private television,” one spout Social model of society, a social-foreign policy, preventive wars and nuclear threat includes thinking in general, “Schmitt's categories Wolf” the rejection of all global institutions, which imposed limits of national sovereignty.
This is an unrestrained, really vicious, distorted image of what liberalism has ever meant, and it will require a lot of time to process them in calmer moments, even the grossest absurdities. The anti-liberal zeitgeist Habermas brings yet to the point. If we clean up his caricature of liberalism to the cloudiness and a faithful reconstruction of liberal ideas, as they represent liberal thinkers from Smith to Buchanan – replace, I would not want to bet on its social acceptance. Because if you spelled the liberal model in its economic consequences, it would be a society-wide unacceptability exposed, because it just yet in a state reserve amounts, which today is almost universally welcomed. This has recently been chaplain to the general problem is that liberal arguments even educated non-economists prima facie hardly convincing. In short, liberal positions are in terms of epistemic presuppositions are simply too full to convince the democratic public opinion.
I think may the sharp rejection of “neoliberalism” is not, however, taken at face value. My thesis is that the ratio of citizens in a democracy to a liberal economic policy is highly ambivalent. In the present discussion is only one side of the ambivalence into play, which is characterized by sharp rejection of market opening and the state reserve, mind against the backdrop of a government's share consistently above 40 percent. If you put empirical citizens an agenda of liberal economic policies, they met – not only in Germany – home to rejection. In the financial market crisis, the anti-liberal voices gain even more weight. The current call for “rules of the market,” says Eucken yes no planning policy, but a statist model of economic freedom and containment. This does not mean that an anti-liberal position in a democracy would also apply in practice. This is contrary to the skeptical view of Caplan, of a liberal economic policy basically holds only for practical, if they go unnoticed operated by the democratic public – eg because the public is busy with other things. Seen in a democracy could liberal economic policies are always just a better-informed elite enforced against citizens in the way of surprise.