Showing posts with label österreichische politik. Show all posts
Showing posts with label österreichische politik. Show all posts

Saturday, September 16, 2017

The Big Three in the Austrian Chancellor's race

On Friday, I had the chance to attend the "Big Three" debate between the three leading candidates for Austrian Chancellor in the election of October 15 in the Design Center in Linz. It was sponsored by the leading state/provincial newspapers, including Die Presse (Vienna) and the Oberösterreichische Nachrichten (Upper Austria). The video of the debate in German is available online at the Kleine Zeitung and at Bei Steuerplänen schieden sich die Geister, Lucian Mayringer et al, Oberösterreichische Nachrichten 15.09.2017. (The sound on both is low for the first few minutes.)

Austria has a parliamentary system, with the President elected as head of state in a separate election from the Parliament. The head of government is the Chancellor, whose function is called Prime Minister in some other countries, and is typically elected by a majority in Parliament, which often requires a formal agreement between two or more political parties. Since 1987, the government has mostly been composed of some combination of the center-left Socialdemokratisched Partei (SPÖ) and the center-right Christian-Democratic Volkspartei (ÖVP). The third-largest party is the Freiheitliche Partei (FPÖ), which we could (generously) describe as far right.

The Big Three (l to r): Sebastian Kurz, Christian Kern, HC Strache

In this campaign, the current Chancellor Christian Kern is candidate for the SPÖ, Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz for the ÖVP, and Heinz-Christian Strache for the FPÖ. Technically, Kurz is running on the Sebastian Kurz List, but that's basically just a marketing ploy. Kurz is currently the leading candidate in the polls, and is trying to maximize the potential advantage of looking as he does 16 years old and to emphasize that he's a new and fresh leader. Actually, at 31, he's almost twice as old as he looks.

It was a relatively civilized debate, which the press commentary reflected. Here is one way in which an American has to remember that Austria is different from the US. In Austria, it's not considered normal for a candidate to, for instance, demand that their opponent be locked up. Or to complain that female reporters menstruate. But politics is inevitably about conflicts, so not everything was harmonious at the debate.

The topics included education, taxes, digitalization and employment, the budget, pensions, and immigration. But immigration and the status of non-citizens in Austria - a topic on which I don't pretend to be a disinterred party - was the main theme, thanks in particular to Kurz. Prior to 2015, xenophobia was mainly pushed by the FPÖ. For instance, in 1993 the FPÖ used an anti-foreigner referendum campaign to exploit nationalist and xenophobic sentiment. They called their campaign "Austria First." And in a fashion now all-too-familiar to Americans in our own politics, the FPÖ has consistently encouraged and maintained visible links to hardcore anti-democratic rightwing groups, some of which constantly flirt with neo-Nazi propaganda, the latter being illegal in Austria under the terms of the Independence Treaty of 1955 with the US, the then-USSR, Britain and France.

But Kurz has made the anti-immigrant theme his own. In Friday's debate, Kurz introduced an anti-Islam meme into a discussion of education ("Islamic kindergartens"). And he and Strache competed in beating the anti-foreign drums. Problems in the education system? According to Kurz and Strache, the only real problem there is that there are too many g*******d foreign children in Austria. Budget problems? Also because there are too many g*******d foreign children in Austria. Since current American levels of crassness aren't yet respectable in Austrian politics, they didn't actually use the cuss word.

Kurz claimed the low point for the day when he complained that there are too many Africans in Africa and they are still breeding more. Seriously! Maybe he was thinking that white South Africans have too high a birth rate. But I'm guessing not. It's a notable accomplishment for the leader of the ÖVP to come out of a face-to-face confrontation with Strache sounding like the more xenophobic of the two.

I was surprised that the word "terrorism" never came up in the debate, because Kurz and Strache have typically linked their hostility to foreigners with security questions. It was especially surprising because of the current report on Friday of what could have been an attempted terrorist attack in London.

But for me it was grim to hear with what a complete lack of compassion and realism the three candidate discussed the issue of refugees. All the three parties including the SPÖ have stressed the need to keep refugees out. Kern did introduce a bit of realism into Friday's discussion by talking about the real problems of war, climate change and economic crisis in the Middle East and North Africa. But it was discussed all but exclusively in terms of keeping the foreigners out of Austria.

I wouldn't want to minimize the seriousness of the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe, which is far from over. On the contrary, it's a chronic problem that the EU is currently handling with the "extend-and-pretend" approach which has been the dominant characteristic of Angela Merkel's approach to both the euro crisis and the refugee crisis. The current perception of the crisis in Austria has been heavily influenced by the refugee surge in 2015, with chaotic scenes in the city of Salzburg and the town of Traiskirchen. Ferry Maier and Julia Ortner present some of the substantive issues on the handling of refugees in Austria, including the state of the national and state emergency services, in Willkommen in Österreich? (2017).

A not-especially-diverse pundit panel discuss the discussion afterwards

But the Big Three couldn't find much time to address those substantive issues on Friday. Instead what was mainly on display were the polemical techniques the xenophobes have used to transform the image of desperate people fleeing war and severe persecution into one of coddled foreigners getting special benefits that Austrians don't get. And specifically into an image of Austrians being threatened by the presence of foreign children. It's ugly stuff.

On the bright side, there wasn't much use of favorite Islamophobe buzzwords, except for "Islamic kindergartens." (There were no similar complaints in the debate about Catholic kindergartens, of which Austria has plenty.)

On the other issues, the most substantive point was made by Chancellor Kern on tax policy, when he stressed that tax cuts, which all three are advocating, should be targeted to lower and medium income earners, not to corporations or the wealthy. And he stressed - accurately - that the Kurz and Strache proposals would most benefit the latter. None of the three wanted to be very specific about what program cuts would accompany their tax cuts. No one even mentioned the issues a large tax cut might cause for Austria under the terms of the eurozone Fiscal Suicide Pact, officially the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, better known as the Stability Pact.

Kern and Strache were agreed in opposing the increase of the retirement age, which Kurz supports.

But on other entries, all three generally took seemingly safe, stock, anodyne positions on most issues. All three are in favor of good education. They all favor increasing government efficiency. All three are committed to the TINA (There Is No Alternative) Angela Merkel/Herbert Hoover economic policies that are currently dominant in the EU. A symptom of the latter is that all three used "education" as a magic conjuring word that would solve all economic problems. And, if it doesn't, well, it's your own fault for making those infamous Bad Choices. Along with the usual fantasies about unemployed workers in their mid-50s retraining for new and better jobs.

The discussion was moderated by Wolfgang Braun of the Oberösterreichische Nachrichten and Claudia Gigler of the Kleine Zeitung. Gigler was the only female journalist with a role in the discussion. Afterwards, there was a half hour discussion of the event by six commentators, all of them white guys. There was some diversity there, though. At least one of the six on the pundit panel was probably younger than 50.

Like their American counterparts, the journalist panel was particularly interested in the horse race speculation. Who will get the biggest vote? And what kind of party coalition could then be built? On that score, it was pretty obvious that Kurz and Strache were campaigning for an ÖVP/FPÖ coalition. That probably contributed to Strache's relatively restrained conduct in the appearance, which is not always his approach.

It struck me early on that Strache was the most experienced politician of the three. He was quicker on his comebacks and easily employed humor. Kern sounds like a Chancellor, which he is. But a glad-handing politician, not so much. I would agree, though, with the commentators who noted that Kern's performance could enhance his credibility at governance. That is, for the voters for whom that's important. Kurz comes off like a well-spoken teenaged conservative twit who thinks there are too many Africans in Africa.

For an American used to the tiresome rituals of our own TV Pod Pundits, it's refreshing to see journalists actually act like journalists and pressing politicians to respond to their questions and not just letting them repeat their preferred talking points. Braun and Gigler did a good job of that during the main event. What was missing, though, was some much needed fact-checking. Strache, for instance, ranted at one point about hundreds of millions of euros being paid to support non-existent children. Which would be a suspect claim even it weren't coming from someone like Strache, who lies like breathing on topics like this. Kern then ridiculed Strache's claim with a more credible-sounding number about the entire cost of the program in question. But neither Braun nor Gigler offered any kind of fact-checking on the topic, which would have really been helpful. Especially since Strache's claim is a popular xenophobic talking point right now. In his mini-rant about there too many Africans in Africa, Kurz also used population growth rate predictions that were fantasy nonsense, which also could have used a real time fact-check from the reporters. (Not that his point had anything to do with mastering demographic forecasts.)

A final cross-cultural observation: The Chancellor's debate included no discussion about whether Austria should nuke North Korea. Or start a war with Iran. Or send more troops to ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Comparatively speaking, from an American viewpoint Austria has a much preferable set of problems to wrestle with.

Press reports:

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Veränderung mit Verantwortung: Neoliberalism and the center-left, Austrian edition

Austrian parliamentary elections are coming up in October. Among the three most important parties are the social-democratic/center-left SPÖ (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs), the Christian Democratic/conservative ÖVP (Österreichische Volkspartei), and the rightwing/populist FPÖ (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs).

The SPÖ and ÖVP have been coalition partners in the national government for so long it's a wonder anyone can tell the difference between them anyway. But why let that stop the SPÖ from blurring that difference even more?

The SPÖ had earlier in the campaign adopted the slogan, "Holen Sie sich, was Ihnen zusteht" ("Take what you deserve"), as we see in this poster featuring Kern as a kinda-sorta man of the people. As a slogan, it has a little bite, vaguely promising to the a defender of the unfairly deprived. The opposition parties criticized it. An opposition party criticizing your slogan, imagine that! Who could have known? They said it sounded like the SPÖ was encouraging street thieves.


And Heaven forbid that one of the legendary parties of the European left would use a slogan that might mildly irritate people who would never consider voting for them anyway. So, of course, they changed it to "Veränderung mit Verantwortung" ("Responsible change").


It just doesn't get more boring than this.

Responsible Change is right up there with Stronger Together and A Better Deal. As forgettable as they are uninspiring. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the SPÖ hired establishment Democratic consultants from America that told them that of course the smartest approach for a center-left party that has held the Chancellorship for years was to use a slogan as bland and inoffensive as possible.

This is why the social democratic parties in Europe are in real danger of shrinking to minor centrist parties. Since the basic social and economic assumptions of the neoliberal ideology are conservative ones, the conservative parties have generally been less damaged by militant centrism than the center-left parties.

Maybe Bernie or Elizabeth Warren can swipe the Take What You Deserve slogan, since the SPÖ decided they don't want it any more.

But Responsible Change? Good grief! And consultants get paid good money to come up with loser slogans like that.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Frank Stronach, Canadian-Austrian billionaire and political clown (Updated 10/05/2012)

I just saw an interview from Austrian ORF TV with Frank Stronach, an 80-year-old Austrian-Canadian businessman who's running for Parliament for 2013 as a non-politician politician as head of a party of his own that he prefers to call a "movement."

The guy is so clownish that he makes the American Republican Herman Cain look like a bit of a policy wonk. His idea for solving the euro crisis is to have every eurozone country have its own euro with market-driven exchange rates. Which anyone with even the slightest understanding of what, you know, a currency is, means simply abolishing the euro and going back to national currencies, even if they each call their new national currency a "euro."

But he either didn't know or pretended not to know that's what it meant. And he promised to appoint a commission to examine the idea if he were elected Chancellor. But when one of the journalists interviewing him pressed him on who he would appoint to his council of wise men (which is what he called it), he couldn't come up with a single name.

The guy is a bad joke as a politician. Which he claims not to be, although he ran for office unsuccessfully in Canada back in the 1980s and has been active behind the scenes cultivating the Austrian political elite in the two main political parties. He ran unsuccessfully for Parliament in 1988 on the Canadian Liberal Party ticket. His daughter Belinda Stronach was elected to the Canadian Parliament for the Conservative Party in 2004 but later switched to the Liberals and served in the national Cabinet. She left Parliament in 2008 and is now CEO of the Stronach Group.

TV journalism is still alive, though, even though in the United States it's desperately gasping for breath. The four journalists interviewing Stronach pressed him pretty hard and challenged his answers when they were unresponsive or didn't make sense.

He's showing up in opinion polls with as much as 17% of the vote, but it's hard to believe he's going anywhere with his latest political kick. Surely a large part of those saying they favor him are really saying "none of the above." Remember when Herman Cain led the Republican Presidential race in opinion polls?

((Update 10/05/2012: The 17% figure was based on the dodgy presentation of a poll result in the Kronen Zeitung that did include none-of-the-above responses and other tiny parties like the Communist Party and the Pirate Party: Stronach als Senkrecht-Starter vor NR-Wahl 27,09,2012. See also the Lacker/Schwaiger article cited just below on the Kronen Zeitung's presentation.)

See Herbert Lackner und Rosemarie Schwaiger, Der Messias aus Ebreichsdorf Profil 29.09.2012; Georgina Prodhan, Frank Stronach launches election campaign: 'Austria is my homeland' Reuters 09/27/2012; Sebastian Pumberger, Stronach: "Ich bin die Person, die die Werte vorgibt" Der Standard 27.09.2012; Markus Huber und Elke Windisch, Opel-Übernahme. Wer ist Frank Stronach? Die Zeit 01.06.2009; Frank Stronach – der Turf-Tycoon aus Österreich Der Standard 04.04.2012 (a profile from 10 years ago); Here's a ZIB 2 interview with Stronach (in German), ORF Interview mit Frank Stronach YouTube date 27.09.2012 about his current campaign:



This is a campaign biography from the TeamStronach YouTube channel, Frank Stronach: Biographie 27.09.2012:



That video includes a tribute from, gulp, Bill Clinton. (?!?)

Tags: , , , ,

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Austrian Socialist Chancellor proposes Herbert Hooverish idea for the country's Constitution

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann is head of the Austrian Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and head of government in a Grand Coalition with the conservative, Christian Democratic People's Party (ÖVP).

Now that Austria is coming under pressure from the bond speculators as part of the collapse of the euro currency, Faymann is proposing a foolish, Herbert Hooverish idea of writing a maximum debt limit into the Austrian Constitution. This is one more symptom of the kind of corruption of policy and economic thinking that the dominance of neoliberal economic thinking has produced. Writing a particular economic doctrine of this specificity into the national constitution is just a bad idea, like the concept of a balanced budget to the US Constitution. It could lock Austria into overly rigid policies in a future (or even not-so-future) economic crisis. It could be an powerful temptation to the kind of disguising the actual level of debt that both Greece and Italy did, both with significant help from Goldman Sachs.

So far, Faymann isn't proposing ruinous cuts to the budget. Austria's current employment rate is high. And, fortunately, some in both the SPÖ and the ÖVP are dubious about this proposal. Hopefully dubious enough that it fails.

This is a video in German of him defending his proposal, Bundeskanzler Werner Faymann zur Schuldenbremse YouTube date 22.11.2011.



I commented on his YouTube and Facebook message, "Es wäre einfach töricht, solche eine spezifische ökonomische Doktrin in die Verfassung zu verankern!" (It would be simply foolish to anchor such a specific economic doctrine in the Constitution!)

Tags: , , , ,

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Austria's recent election and the implications

Werner Faymann, leader of Austria's Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, SPÖ), which led in the election results on Sunday

As promised - or as threatened, depending on your perspective - I'm posting more on the Austrian election of this past Sunday, which resulted in the previous five parties in Parliament all returning, with the two far-right parties gaining while the conservative party and the two left parties lost votes compared to their previous experience.

I won't try in this post to go into detail on the particular methods of parliamentary government. But normally in parliamentary systems, either one party has to get a majority - like the Spanish Socialists in their last two elections - or they have to form a coalition, like the current Grand Coalition in Germany of the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD). A party in Austria has to get 4% of the votes nationwide to win any seats in parliament (with a technical exception I won't go into here). Parliamentary seats are allocated to parties based on the proportion of the votes of the parties who met the 4% hurdle.

To form a government, a party or coalition needs a majority of votes in the lower house of parliament, the upper house being elected by state (provincial) legislatures similar to the way US Senators were elected before the 20th century.

The parliamentary parties are as follows. The SPÖ (Socialdemokratische Partei Österreichs) is the social-democratic party, dating back to the 19th century when it was founded by Viktor Adler (who, for trivia fans, lived in the same house in Vienna's 9th district where Sigmund Frued later lived). The social-democrats were the leading advocates of democracy in the Habsburg Empire, and led the democratic revolution of 1918. Parties have long been identified by colors in Europe, a habit the US only picked up after the 2000 election. The SPÖ are the "reds", though they aren't advocating anything like the massive nationalizations currently being pursued by the American "red" Republicans.

The ÖVP (People's Party, Österreichische Volkspartei) is the Christian Democratic Party. In European terms, they are the conservative party. It's better to not even try to compare them with American Republicans. The ÖVP is still thought of as the Catholic party, but the degree of religiosity now required even of Democrats and the level of church-party collaboration seen with the Republicans and the backroom barons of the Christian Right is unheard-of in the ÖVP. Not even close. Party color: black.

Viktor Adler: his soul goes marching on, too, fortunately for Austria

The FPÖ (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) is what in European terms would be called a rightwing-liberal party. That concept just doesn't compute at all in American politics. To describe them in a more general way, we could say they are xenophobic and populist-demagogic. Party color: blue. (Definitely not like the American "blues"!) The BZÖ (Bündnis Zukunft Österreichs, Alliance for Austria's Future) is also a rightwing-liberal party. It's a split-off from the FPÖ, and is essentially the personal vehicle for Jörg Haider, governor (Landeshauptmann) of the state of Carinthia. Haider achieve international notoriety in the 1990s as a Mussolini-wannabe with a "yuppie-fascist" style. But basically he's a narcissistic clown who mainly likes to see himself on TV. Party color: orange. Both the FPÖ and BZÖ could be compared to George Wallace's movement of 1968.
Then there's the Green Party, which has become a real force in Austrian politics in the last 10 years. The state of Upper Austria has been ruled since 2003 by a black-green coalition (ÖVP and Greens). Arnold Schwaryenegger's home city of Graz just got a black-green coalition this year, with Green vice-mayor who's openly lesbian. The ÖVP mayor had campaigned against the decadence of homosexuality. He's says he's learning a lot in the new coalition.

The basic problem in Austrian national politics is that the two biggest parties, SPÖ and ÖVP, have been in a Grand Coalition (red-black or black-red) for most of the last 20 years. AS Germany is now experiencing, having the two biggest opposing parties in a coalition together is tough to manage, even though it would seem to be the embodiment of the "bipartisanship" that the American practitioners or High Broderism seem to think is the be-all and end-all of political virtue.

Aside from administrative difficulties, though, it means that neither of the two largest parties can play the role of loyal opposition. What's been happening in Austria is that the FPÖ and BZÖ have been able to be the opposition against the SPÖ-led Grand Coalition that just fell apart, prompting last Sunday's election. If the SPÖ or the ÖVP could form a coaltion with one or more of the other parties, then the other large party could act as the opposition, which would reduce the protest votes going to the FPÖ and BZÖ.

The Greens should have been able to also benefit from protest votes. But their vote percentage actually went down slightly. I think a lot in this case has to do with their current leader Alexander Van der Bellen. He's an obviously intelligent man, but he's scarcely a rabble-rouser. He comes across on TV like a tired old professor.

The breakdown of seats in the new Austrian Nationalrat (lower house of parliament) should break down close to the popular vote results as of this writing, which might change slightly if absentee votes still remain to be counted: SPÖ, 30%; ÖVP, 26%; FPÖ, 18%; BZÖ, 11%; Greens, 10%. Those results were historic lows for the SPÖ and ÖVP.

Since the SPÖ has the largest percentage, President Heinz Fischer (SPÖ) will ask the SPÖ to form a new government. Party leader Werner Feymann initially indicated after the election that he would attempt to make a new Grand Coalition with the ÖVP, which I think is a terrible idea. They just had a Grand Coalition fall apart, albeit with different leaders at the head of the parties than now, and the two coalition parties were hammered in the election results.

The immediate problem is that the SPÖ and ÖVP consider the FPÖ and BZÖ to be such stinkers that neither wants to be in a coalition with them. The SPÖ would need the Greens and the FPÖ to form a majority coalition without the ÖVP. But FPÖ leader H. C. Strache is kind of a thuggish guy. During the election campaign, some photos were published of him participating in military training with weapons with a militia-tzype rightwing group in the woods. As a result, federal prosecutors are currently reviewing whether he should be charged with "NS-Wiederbetätigung", which roughly means "attempting to revive the Nazi Party". That is illegal in Austria. Austria's independence treaty with the US, Britain, France and the Soviet Union actually requires it to ban the Nazi Party.

Now, I can make judgments about Austrian politics without having to rely on the current state of the US practice of democracy. But I do think Americans need to keep some sense of perspective. Strache, the leader of Austria's third biggest party, was screwing around with dumbass rightwingers playing with their guns in the woods when he was 20. Having avoided shooting himself in the foot, his mentality hasn't evolved much beyond that.

But Jesus God, look at what we have in the United States. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State are criminals. War criminals for the invasion of Iraq and the torture policy. Remember how the happy gang, including that famous honorable "moderate" Colin Powell, sat around designing in gruesome detail the torture of particular individuals? They have politicized justice in a blatant way. They openly broke the law on surveillance, and got the "opposition"-dominated Congress to give retroactive approval to it. They administered the Iraq contracts is a way so mind-boggling corrupt it would have made the 19th-century robber barons blush. The Republicans are carrying out blatant voter-suprresion activities on a massive scale, using approaches straight out of the Southern segregationist playbook. The Supreme Court overrode the results of the 2000 election to install Dick Cheney and George Bush in power. And the President has claimed and put into proactice the right, so far tolerated by out sad version of a Congress, and only partially challenged by the Republican-dominated courts to disobey any law he chooses, and even to violate the explicit provisions of the Constitution as long as he claims his actions are justified on grounds of "national security". And what isn't involved with national security in our Cheneyized national security state of today?

I really view our current American government as a semi-democracy. We literally would not qualify for membership in the European Union, because we don't meet their minimal requirements for democractic practices and the rule of law.

Getting back to the much smaller problems of Austrian democracy, the ÖVP could theoretically form a government with the Greens and the FPÖ, or with the FPÖ and the BZÖ. But having the FPÖ and the BZÖ in the same coalition would be virtually impossible as a practical matter because of the leading personalities involved, apart from the democratic deficits of the parties.

My preferred outcome of the Austrian government negotiations would be a red-green minority government. That's a real possibility. It would give the reds and Greens a chance to put through some constructive programs and then run on them in the next election. And it would allow the ÖVP to act as the leading opposition party and take protest votes from the FPÖ and BZÖ.

If only our democractic deficits in America were as modest as Austria's ...

Tags: , , ,

"Rechtsruck" (shift to the right) in Austria

If it was good enough for George...

Austria's banks aren't making international news in the current world financial meltdown. Yet. Actually, Austrian banks have been pursuing profits in recent years the old-fashioned way: providing regular banking services to people who need them. In particular, they have expanded their regular commercial and retail banking businesses into eastern European countries like Rumania. Austria, despite being a small country, benefits greatly from its historical business ties to eastern Europe going backt to the days of the Habsburg's Austro-Hungarian Empire.

It happens that I'm visiting in Austria at the time it is making international news. Austria and Mississippi have one thing in common when it comes to making world or national-US news. It usually only happens when there is a natural disaster or a political one. (An exception was the good news that a Democrat won a previously Republican Congressional seat in a special election earlier this year.)

Reuters/Yahoo! News provides the colorful headline, Far right surges in Austria vote, instability looms 09/29/08. Back in 1999-2000, the last time an Austrian election generated these sorts of headlines, I was a hardliner in terms of preferring to see a strong diplomatic response from the US and other EU countries.

It turned out that the other EU countries' decision to not invite Austrian diplomats to the normal rounds of dinners and parties for a couple of weeks was strong enough. More importantly, Austria's then-President Thomas Klestil used his authority as the elected President to reject a couple of proposed cabinet ministers who were particularly obnoxious in their uncertain devotion to the Austrian Constitution and the rule of law.

More to follow in a later post on the particulars of the Austrian election, more than probably most American readers care to know. Short version: the "far right" parties in Austria are less radical in their ideologies and more devoted to the rule of law than the Cheney-Bush administration - seriously. Two of the five parties in Parliament are "far right" for real. Our Republicans really are more so.

But one aspect of this election genuinely surprised me. Obviously I haven't been following the Austrian news as closely as I would like to, because I hadn't heard this before last week. In the national parliamentary elections held this past Sunday, 16-year-olds were able to vote for the first time. No, that's not a typo, that's 16, one-six.

Now, my circle of Austrian and German acquaintances is not especially conservative. But everyone older than teenaged that I've heard talk about this so far is shocked at the thought that 16-year-olds can vote!

I'm shocked, too. Shocked, I tell you, shocked! I mean, how can anyone expect mere 16-year-olds to exercise the mature, sensible political judgment that adults like Rush Limbaugh, Shaun Hannity and Bill O'Reilly exhibit on a daily basis? I mean, what 16-year old could make an analysis, or even understand an analysis, like one of our leading columnists, Maureen Dowd, displays in the New York Times twice weekly? (Zeus knows, I sure don't understand it.)

Now that I think about it a bit, I think that no one under 30 should be allowed to vote. And, hey, requiring voters to own at least $100,000 in property would be a good idea, too. Because why should people who don't have a financial stake in their country and communities be allowed to vote? It's well known that the richer you are, the more sound your judgment is. That's why investment bankers, hedge fund managers and mortgage lenders are the most prudent, sensible, responsible people you can find.

And who was it anyway that came up with this notion that women should be able to vote? Come to think of it, Austria recognized women's right to vote (1918) before the United States did, too. It was just after the socialists took over in a revolution. So there you see what a commie subversive idea that whole thing was.

I mean, if "one family, one vote" was good enough for George and Martha Washington, why isn't it good enough for us? Everybody knows that women get all impulsive because of, you know, hormones and stuff. But take a sober wealthy CEO white guy like Dick Cheney, or a sturdy-jawed manly-man like John McCain, who could imagine them ever making impulsive or reckless decisions?

So far, though, none of my Austrian friends and relatives that I make these arguments to seem to be convinced. I don't get it. I guess it's true what they say: In Austria, the clocks really do tick differently.

Tags: , , ,