Conference report: “Rethinking Liberalism — Challenges to Liberalism in Turbulent Times”
When the Center for Liberal Modernity was founded in 2017, the “illiberal counterrevolution” (Timothy Garton Ash) was already in full swing. But the force with which autocratic and illiberal currents have since picked up speed exceeds our fears. Our international conference “Rethinking Liberalism — Challenges to Liberalism in Turbulent Times” took place just days before Trump’s second inauguration, in the third year of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and overshadowed by the electoral successes of right-wing populists across of Europe.
t
Contents
Rethinking Liberalism: Challenges in Turbulent Times
Keynote & Discussion: On Freedom
Panel I: The state of freedom in the US and Europe
Panel II: What liberalism has to say to us today
Panel III: How can the international liberal order be saved?
Panel IV: How to make liberal democracy great again?
Final panel: Defending freedom
Rethinking Liberalism: Challenges in Turbulent Times
In this context, the current state of liberalism and liberal democracy worldwide is a cause for concern. To help liberalism out of its position of defense, it is essential not only to analyze the causes of its crisis and the rise of populism, but also to develop innovative ideas for its renewal.
Holding that in mind, we hosted an international conference at the Allianz Forum in Berlin-Mitte on January 16, 2025, entitled “Rethinking Liberalism: Challenges to Liberalism in Turbulent Times”. The event brought together leading liberal thinkers, policymakers from around the world, and representatives of civil society and academia to discuss key issues for the future of liberalism and to provide new impetus for its further development.
The following core questions were discussed:
- What internal weaknesses of liberalism have contributed to the current crisis?
- How can liberal democracies strengthen their resilience to political, economic and ecological challenges?
- What strategies are needed to effectively address populist issues such as migration?
- How can the concept of “defending democracy” protect freedom without drifting into authoritarian tendencies?
- What role should liberal democracies play in the emerging global (dis)order, especially in dealing with authoritarian powers such as China and Russia?
With around 200 guests and numerous panels, there was plenty of material for critical reflection and the discussion of liberal answers to an increasingly turbulent world.
Welcome and introduction
“The weakness of liberal democracies, and not the strength of their opponents, is the problem. Merely defending the status quo is not enough. We liberals must finally come out of our defensive stance.” Ralf Fücks
In his opening speech, Ralf Fücks identified six factors contributing to the rapid rise of illiberalism:
- The triumph of liberalism has triggered the anti-liberal backlash. What for some are political and cultural achievements mean the loss of traditional values and security for others.
- The inherent belief in progress in liberalism has been replaced by scenarios of decline.
- A fear of losing control, which goes hand in hand with globalization, mass immigration and the digital revolution, dominates the discourse
- The growing mental and social gap between the winners and losers of economic and cultural modernization
- The arrogance and self-centeredness of liberal elites, and
- Growing doubts about the ability of democratic parties and institutions to act.
Liberalism will only regain its appeal if it provides liberal answers to the great challenges of our time and radiates a new idea of progress, according to Fücks.
In her welcoming speech, Karolina Wigura described liberalism as a promise of freedom and the opportunity to shape one’s own life individually. This promise is of particular importance for the post-Soviet democracy movements, the “Solidarnosc Generation”. At the same time, liberalism comes with an obligation: A temporary modus vivendi must be found time and again, by means of which different individuals can jointly find a peaceful and free form of society. She found a metaphor to describe the special character of liberalism: A garden whose plants are as precious as they are fragile. It is up to us whether we want to be gardeners or barbarians in this garden od Liberalism.
“We need gardeners to take care of the garden of liberalism and its delicate plants, which are worthy of protection, to tend to them and let them flourish.” Karolina Wigura
The conference in detail:
Keynote: On Freedom
The keynote of the conference was delivered by Alan S. Kahan, Professor of British Civilization at the Université de Versailles/St. Quetin-en-Yvelines and member of the Sciences Po St. Germain-en-Laye. Based on his book “Freedom from Fear”, in which Kahan examines the history of liberalism in terms of its sustainability, he emphasized that liberalism means the search for a society that is free from fear. Fears — of the force and pace of change, which are always accompanied by losses — are the breeding ground for anti-liberal populism.
Freedom from fear is never complete, and liberalism is always incomplete; it contains a utopian – unfulfilled – element. Throughout its history, liberalism has constantly been threatened – by feudal absolutism, by modern totalitarianism, but also by the poverty of large sections of the population, which can lead to radicalism and extremism. The current threat is populism, said Kahan.
“We can debate whether populism is democratic. But populism certainly cannot be liberal. There can be an illiberal democracy. But there is no such thing as liberal populism.” Alan S. Kahan
Populists thrive on fear and stoke fear, Kahan continued. He asked how we have reached a point where populism has gained such strength. His answer: After the end of the Second World War, liberals had increasingly discussed less and less about values and morals, thereby leaving a void for populists to fill. Liberals had increasingly no longer discussed moral progress and ideas of a “good life”, but limited themselves to defending political and economic freedom. As an example, he cited the liberalism of economist and Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman
In addition, during the 1960s, parts of the political right had allied with the liberals in the fight against communism. With the end of communism, liberalism had found itself on its traditional battleground, fighting against both the political right and the left.
The reason for the current weakness of liberalism is not the economy: we are not in a global economic crisis, there is no hyperinflation that could explain the rise of illiberalism, said Kahan. In fact, according to Kahan, we live in a world in which individuals are exposed to very little pressure. And yet millions of people have turned away from liberalism and towards populism.
“We need a liberalism 4.0. We need a rebranding. I am no longer talking about liberal democracy, I am talking about democratic liberalism. Because freedom comes first.” Alan S. Kahan
To become able to speak again, we would have to return to the three basic pillars of liberalism: freedom, the market and morality. Democratic liberalism must mean hope for all parts of society and exclude resentment; it needs a society based on solidarity, not one based on egalitarianism.
Why, Kahan went on to ask, should anyone be enthusiastic about liberalism if it does not include progress? For that, he said, we need a liberal market economy and democratic institutions that work better in the face of populism than our current ones do.
“Liberalism has to be a party of hope, not a party of fear. We need democratic liberalism because freedom of course is the only good choice.” Alan S. Kahan
Comment and discussion
Alan S. Kahan’s keynote speech was the starting point for a lively discussion.
Jan Zielonka, Emeritus Professorial Fellow at St Antony’s University of Oxford and Professor of International Relations at the University of Venice, defined populism as the result of a pathology of democracy. The dissatisfaction with democracy felt by large sections of the population was responsible for its rise.
“Populism is an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism.” Jan Zielonka
The journalist Kerstin Kohlenberg, most recently head of the Washington office of DIE ZEIT, pointed out that “liberalism” in the USA is currently framed as an ideology of the political left. It is seen by parts of society as an attack on their values and a disregard for their lifestyles.
Karolina Wigura took up Jan Zielonka’s diagnosis. Populism is easy to diagnose, but difficult to overcome. Not only does liberalism form the framework of our Western civilization, but it also contains values. However, she warned, there is also a tendency to lecture, which should never be the task of liberalism.
Ralf Fücks interjected that while the majority of liberal thinkers had formulated values and principles, they had never formulated a utopian vision of a good society – for good reasons, liberalism leaves the future open. He added that Alan Kahan, too, had defined liberalism primarily in negative terms, as freedom from fear.
Kahan replied that it was important to have ideals and values and to know them as a point of reference, but that liberalism was always incomplete – he pointed to the provisional character of the liberal project:
“Clearly one of liberalism’s great strength is to be open ended, that it does not have a strict target point for the future. That’s why we can update the operating system.” Alan S. Kahan
The relationship between liberalism and democracy was discussed in the further course of the discussion:
Kahan emphasized that democracy primarily means the sovereignty of the majority, and therefore populism is thoroughly democratic, even if it is not liberal. Jan Zielonka strongly disagreed, saying that ultimately democracy means much more than the rule of the majority, as populists falsely claim. He criticized the fact that liberals do not deal with the causes of the crisis of liberalism, but often take paths that are not conducive to the fight against populism. They often try to fight populism with populism or – by means of technocracy, which causes even more resentment towards the political system. Instead, one must address the shortcomings of democracy, said Zielonka.
Karolina Wigura disagreed with Zielonka’s analysis on one point: with regard to Denmark, where a centrist government has taken up the populists’ issues, an electoral victory for the populists has been prevented.
Journalist Kerstin Kohlenberg pointed to the central role of social media, which reduce complex issues to simple messages. Democrats would have to find a language to counter the populists.
A positive vision of values and morals is needed, supported by a language of respect, said Kahan.
However, this respect cannot be shown to homophobia, anti-Semitism, racism or misogyny, added Jan Zielonka. A liberal culture can never be imposed on people per se. Zielonka also pointed to the self-righteous, even arrogant attitude of liberals, which has contributed to the weakness of liberalism.
During the financial crisis and the Covid pandemic, a new acceleration of events has become visible. But democracy is about slowing things down. Furthermore, liberalism does not construct utopias, but lives from experiment and is the result of constant trial and error.
Alan S. Kahan concluded by pointing out the necessity of values that affect not only the individual but also society as a whole. These should be negotiated in dialogue. Kahan quoted Karl Popper’s tolerance parodoxon, according to which unlimited tolerance also leads to the end of tolerance and the abolition of an open, tolerant society.
Panel I: The state of freedom in the US and Europe
The next panel discussion looked at the specific political situation in Europe and the United States.
Constanze Stelzenmüller, director of the Center on the United States and Europe, a division of the Brookings Institution, kicked off the discussion by saying that the new, illiberal Trump administration in the United States wields enormous power. On the other hand, however, there are different camps among Trump supporters: the authoritarian libertarians, whose ideas of state, borders and religion differ significantly from those of the national conservatives, despite some similarities. She did not want to venture any concrete predictions about the next four years in the US. Stelzenmüller emphasized that an authoritarian system change, as has already taken place in Hungary, should be assessed differently from the attempt to weaken democracy and its institutions.
“It is one thing to exhaust the democratic institutions, the markets and society and another to start changing the rules and start fiddling with the machinery of the liberal order.” Constanze Stelzenmüller
The French journalist Christine Ockrent called for a new liberal narrative:Lliberal society is a successful project and we can and should look back on the achievements of liberalism with pride.
The philosopher and chairman of the Ukrainian PEN Center Volodymyr Yermolenko emphasized that in Ukraine, freedom also means the will to be free. He referred to Sartre and his idea that man is damned to freedom. In fact, a lack of freedom can be the easier, more comfortable choice.
Ukraine shows what it means to practice one’s freedom and maintain a democratic society under the adverse conditions of war.
“Liberalism is not a warm bath. Ukraine shows us the close connection between the fight for freedom and being free.” Volodymyr Yermolenko
There are other cultures that are not based on the idea of freedom, which are based on the idea of collectivism instead of the liberal idea of individual freedom. The 21st century is one of intense struggle over these diverging values, Yermolenko pointed out.
Polish historian and LibMod fellow Jarosław Kuisz emphasized that national experiences and shared memories significantly shaped the understanding of populism and liberalism. But political sovereignty is always a prerequisite for democracy.
Constanze Stelzenmüller pointed out the generational differences in attitudes towards democracy and liberalism. If young people today flirt with authoritarianism, she said, we have to ask where the anger of those who identify with it comes from.
Volodymyr Yermolenko asked why the far right in Europe sees Russia as its ally. After all, Putin is not concerned with values or conservatism. He stated that the West is losing faith in itself, indulging in self-doubt and self-flagellation.
“If Ukraine loses the war, this will be the end of Europe. Because everything that we think of as the European idea and its values will be destroyed. The idea of borders will be destroyed, the idea of solving problems peacefully will be destroyed.” Volodymyr Yermolenko
Regarding Kahane’s postulate of a society without fear, Yermolenko remarked that fear is part of human nature. In view of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Europe is not sufficiently afraid of defeat. Fear should mobilize Europeans to fight for their values, which would otherwise be lost.
Jaroslaw Kuisz concluded by appealing not to forget Ukraine and Georgia. He asked: “Where is the solidarity among democrats?” He said that it is lacking, and instead the public sphere has been hijacked by populists.
Panel II: What liberalism has to say to us today
Moderator Alexander Schwitteck, project coordinator at the Center for Liberal Modernity, began by asking what significance liberalism, its thinkers and ideas could convey to us today. Stefan Kolev, economist and director of the Ludwig Erhard Forum, responded with a digression on the concept of neoliberalism, which for him encompasses all innovations within liberalism.
Karen Horn, professor of economics at the University of Erfurt, on the other hand, emphasized the diversity of liberal schools of thought. She said that there were many points of criticism of the liberal thought leaders, but that it was still possible to build on them.
Michael Zürn, professor of international relations at the Free University of Berlin, emphasized that liberalism encompasses much more than populism claims: pluralism, but also universalism, are crucial components of liberalism, as is the commitment to a free market. However, the affinity between liberalism and capitalism also means that liberalism must define a limit to economic inequality. This is particularly important in times when access to education, health, and fair opportunities in life are being questioned.
Ewa Atanassow, professor of politics at Bard College Berlin, argued that liberalism has become the dominant ideology of Western democracies. However, it is wrong to think that we are all liberal today. We need to rethink seemingly opposing values such as nationalism. These are being used today by opponents of liberalism, but could be redefined by liberals to unite democracy and patriotism.
Stefan Kolev emphasized the value of compromise and moderation. Finding agreements without negating differences is something that German post-war society successfully demonstrated, he said: a society that was completely polarized and developed in a very short time into a society based on compromise, agreements and consensus.
Karen Horn added that the ability to moderate and negotiate is part of the Western tradition of thought and thus also differs from the populist environment.
Alexander Schwitteck noted that many Western liberals have become mea culpa liberals. Ewa Atanassow agreed, saying
“The West has gone far too far in taking the blame. Not noticing that a lot of the origin of this blaming comes from hostile places. Liberal democracies should be aware that they are in a fight. You need to be strategic, not only confessional.” Ewa Atanassow
She questioned whether moderation is therefore a good modus operandi. Instead, she said, we should return to the idea of competition. A competition of ideas at the political and economic level. To do this, liberalism should return to one of its fundamental dilemmas: the state, the leviathan, which both grants and restricts fundamental rights. In history, nationalism has meant overcoming inequality.
In contrast, Atanassow put forward the concept of an inclusive and integrating nation state. Liberalism has much more to offer than has been previously thought.
Karen Horn emphasized that one should not talk about liberalism in the abstract. It is about finding answers to the specific problems of specific people. The idea of moderation in the sense of temperance and a willingness to compromise is central to liberal thinking. But for that, a moral framework must be found.
Michael Zürn concluded by saying that liberalism is linked to a particular social epistemology. In contrast to this, there are “alternative facts” and the idea of flooding the public space with untruths. Such ideas and strategies undermine liberal epistemology. This must be defended.
Panel III: How can the international liberal order be saved?
Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the question of its significance for the liberal world order were the subject of the first panel, moderated by Christoph Becker.
Marija Gobuleva, Chair of the Baltic Initiative on European Reform and former Minister of the Interior of Latvia, called the war in Ukraine the greatest challenge for the liberal world order. The question, she said, was whether the West still existed as a political force. The war of disinformation and authoritarian oligarchs within and outside the West were the two most aggressive threats to liberalism.
“Europe is the biggest hope for democratic liberalism to reestablish itself. The question is: Will we as Europe get our act together to enable the strengthening of democratic liberalism?” Marija Gobuleva
Jessica Berlin, Senior Fellow at the Center for European Analysis, emphasized that the outcome of the war in Ukraine would determine the rest of the century. However, the liberal world order we are talking about is seen quite differently in different regions of the world:
“For billions of people around the world, the second half of the 20th century was not particularly liberal, the rules that we came up with did not apply to the entire world, and it was not particularly orderly.” Jessica Berlin
For large parts of the world’s population, our Western values only existed on paper, Berlin said. There is a huge gap between the West’s proclamations and actions. She saw a direct connection between this delusion and the lack of action on Ukraine. This is particularly evident in Germany: The government’s rhetoric is taking a different direction than its actions. What does that tell us about the liberal order?
“Hypocrisy and denial killed the liberal order.” Jessica Berlin
Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations, looked back at the recent past: He could not say at which point the international world order currently finds itself. There was a post-1990 hybris when it was assumed that the whole world would become democratic. The question is whether the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 or rather the Tiananmen massacre in the same year was the defining event. There is a distinction between the post-World War II order and the post-1990 order he said. It is truly liberal only after 1990, he continued.. The liberal overreach and the hybris that is connected to the post-1990 order should be corrected with more moderation. Maybe going back to the more moderate type of 1945 rather than the 1990 model would serve us well, he concluded.
Charles Clarke, former British Home Secretary under Tony Blair, argued that liberal politics had failed to address the negative effects of globalization.
“We as politicians failed to deal with the downsides of globalization. It destroyed whole economies and communities. There were great losses. And this was the momentum of Donald Trump, of Nigel Farrage and of Brexit, of Marine Le Pen and of the AfD.” Charles Clarke
We have moved from a world with two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, to a world with only one superpower and are now on the way to a world with several major powers, Clarke said. The question now is whether we can form coalitions with each other. The nationalists claim that any form of international coalition is terrible, whether it is the EU or the UN or whatever. But it is precisely such international institutions that are needed.
Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff disagreed with Clarke: It is not globalization that is to blame for what we see today. Rather, we have to understand the cultural homelessness that unregulated migration drives people into the hands of right-wing populists. Globalization is only a small part of the cause.
Marija Golubeva pointed out the urgency with which the West must now act together. She asked: Is there something we in the West are fighting for together in Ukraine? The question is how to address the failures of Western policy without completely questioning the liberal order and the international system.
Kleine-Brockhoff emphasized that the post-1990 order was the best since industrialization. Germans in particular have benefited from it and are attached to this order – even beyond its sell-by date. Now, however, dissatisfaction has grown to such an extent that there is hope for change. Reforms are needed in the economy, in technology policy, and in foreign policy. With regard to Trump, he is somewhat perplexed:
“If anyone had told me that hemispheric imperialism would be the concept that the new Trump administration would start its reign with, I would have called him crazy. And we have to understand, this is a coherent concept, this is not just crazy. This is a coherent concept of preparing for a hegemonic conflict through national power. That’s why he attacks even the territorial integrity of allies. That’s a concept I still can’t wrap my head around. I still don’t understand what that will mean.” Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff
Trump could get what he needs from Canada or Denmark in other ways. But he is not concerned with alliances, Kleine-Brockhoff said. His concept is one of spheres of interest, a concept of national power. This explains why Trump does not consider it outlandish that Putin wants to take over parts of Eastern Europe.
Jessica Berlin added that it was Trump’s tactic to start by saying something completely insane and bombastic, which everyone was outraged by. The next step was then to demand something less drastic, which everyone was then relieved about and agreed to. You had to recognize this as a tactic and develop your own tactic for dealing with it.
Panel IV: How to make liberal democracy great again?
How can practical politics respond to the problems that populists use to attack liberal democracy? This was the key question of the panel moderated by Irene Hahn-Fuhr.
Otto Fricke, FDP member of the German Bundestag, emphasized that the FDP had much more to offer than market liberalism. He criticized the fact that both the media and other parties were constantly trying to pin this label on the FDP and thus discredit liberalism. His party stood just as much for civil rights as it did for a market economy.
Sergey Lagodinsky, a member of the European Parliament for the German Green Party, also emphasized that his party stands for much more than climate transformation and identity politics – both trigger points for populist rhetoric. Democratic parties should not allow the AfD to narrow and determine political discourse.
In the necessary endeavor to bind conservative voters or win them back, the CDU will not tear down the firewall to the AfD under any circumstances, emphasized Karin Prien, deputy chairwoman of the CDU. As a liberal-conservative party, the Christian Democrats are a bulwark against right-wing populism and extremism. That is why the AfD’s goal is to destroy the CDU.
In response to the question of how the SPD intends to hold its own against the populists, who are posing as the protectors of the little people, Dietmar Nietan, Member of the Bundestag, emphasized that freedom, justice and solidarity are the three cornerstones of the SPD. The aim is not to pursue a crude distribution policy, but to create smart framework conditions for future investments and new value chains in order to deprive the populists of their social support.
Final panel: Defending freedom
Ralf Fücks opened the final panel of the conference by calling for the famous question “What is to be done” to be the central issue after a day full of clever diagnoses of the crisis of liberal democracies.
The Russian opposition member, activist and former world chess champion Garry Kasparov pointed out that the West’s inertia and passivity stemmed from the fact that it had lived in relative security after 1990 and ignored the warnings about Putin and the rise of authoritarianism. He said that the West did not lack resources, but political courage and determination.
Jan-Werner Müller, the Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Science at Princeton University, argued that the West has gradually adapted to fundamental changes without realizing their dimension. There has been no sudden loss of freedom; loss of freedom comes in many small, imperceptible steps, he said.
And he continued: The political agenda is set by autocrats, and supporters of liberal democracy react by complaining and expressing outrage, but they are not proactive. Müller emphasized that liberalism is not exhausted by the fight against authoritarianism, and that it has more to offer than its opponents. It is up to us to get out of the defensive and develop ideas for the future that appeal to people.
Natalia Gavrilita, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, pointed out the contribution that Eastern Europe has to make to the West’s fight to preserve freedom.
“There is more energy and more determination in central and eastern Europe now. And I think we can contribute a lot in reviving this in western liberal democracies.” Natalia Gavrilita
Liberalism has been put on the defensive, she said, and is having to justify itself. It must be made clear again that only liberalism guarantees individual freedom, human rights, competition and a legal system. Liberal societies should look with pride at the achievements of a free society.
Russia and China are also “delivering”, albeit in very different ways, she pointed out. They are systems that profess illiberal values and are willing to endure difficulties for their own values.
In the West, we have experienced a long period of constant growth. Now this is slowing down. But instead of thinking about what we still have to offer the younger generations to justify the continued existence of democracy, we should change the discourse:
“I think we should change this discourse and say: What are we willing to sacrifice? In order to benefit from liberal democracy. To benefit from individual freedoms.” Natalia Gravilita
Gavrilita emphasized that the parties of the democratic center were making unrealistic promises: “We will produce rapid growth and at the same time stop migration.” In view of the demographics, this is not realistic. We should start by telling people the truth and explaining what is at stake. People can handle the truth, she emphasized.
Katarzyna Kasia, a Polish philosopher and journalist, noted that democracy is not valued equally across the world. Rather than exporting democracy, we should support those – such as Ukraine and Georgia – who are fighting for it themselves.
Populism, she continued, is a very old idea. That it is so successful today is because it is deliberately supported and promoted by those who want war and disruption in Europe.
Like Gary Kasparov, she emphasized that courage is an important part of liberalism, along with hope and confidence. It takes more courage to defend freedom and democracy.
“If we want to defend our freedom and democracy we need a lot more courage. Because what we want to defend is beautiful, it is magnificent, it is important. But it is super fragile. And also the earth is at stake, because our values are in a peculiar way entangled with ecology. If we don’t protect this very fragile world we live in, we will be doomed.” Katarzyna Kasia
Christoph Möllers, professor of public law and philosophy of law at Humboldt University Berlin, emphasized the need for a forward-looking political project. He pointed to the threat of a new media oligarchy that has emerged in the name of liberalism and free speech.
Garry Kasparov called Ukraine a litmus test for Europe and asked why liberals lack energy. A culture war, cancel culture, support for Hamas at elite universities – all this has driven the American middle class into the arms of Trump. Excesses on one side will always help those on the other, Kasparov said.
“We are at war. Technology has made this world much smaller. It is no longer possible to live on one side of the iron curtain without cross-interference. And the other side, call them the bad actors, they know that. That’s not why they are staying within their sphere of influence, they are attacking. Whether it is Russia, China, or Iran.” Garry Kasparov
Ukraine is the most important battleground today, where the fight for freedom is being waged. This must be recognized and Ukraine must be supported in order to win this fight, said Kasparov.
Jan-Werner Müller disagreed with Kasparov’s analysis of the culture war in the U.S. If voters had been concerned only with the fight against ‘wokeness,’ they could have voted not for Trump, but for Nikki Haley or Ron de Santis.
He pointed to the new power of a new techno-oligarchy that is converting monetary power into political power:
“Today one of the biggest threats is a new oligarchy. The issue is the concentration of power and the conversion of power. We are facing an unprecedented accumulation of financial, political and media power.” Jan-Werner Müller
Natalia Gavrilita replied that liberals had focused too much on debates that were less about the common good and more about questions of cultural identity. These identity debates are also fraught with strong emotions.
Katarzyna Kasia emphasized the importance of new media in the fight for public opinion:
“We will never be able to transmit the values of liberalism if we are losing the channels of information to transmit those values.” Katarzyna Kasia
Christoph Möllers argued that moral values and cultural norms cannot be produced or decreed by politics if they are to be liberal values. Liberal values must be produced and defended by civil society.
He was sceptical about the possibilities of a militant democracy when 30 percent or more of the electorate is made up of anti-democratic forces.
Garry Kasparov then summarized the hopes and prospects associated with the conference:
“We are at a critical junction. Because we are at war. We cannot win the war by simply being defensive. We have to come up with a plan. And hopefully this conference will be a contribution in designing the plan to fight back. And to prove the fact: liberal democracy and a market economy are pillars of a successful society.” Garry Kasparov
Sponsored by
Hat Ihnen unser Beitrag gefallen? Dann spenden Sie doch einfach und bequem über unser Spendentool. Sie unterstützen damit die publizistische Arbeit von LibMod.
Spenden mit Bankeinzug
Spenden mit PayPal
Wir sind als gemeinnützig anerkannt, entsprechend sind Spenden steuerlich absetzbar. Für eine Spendenbescheinigung (nötig bei einem Betrag über 200 EUR), senden Sie Ihre Adressdaten bitte an finanzen@libmod.de
