The case of Eugen Richter

In considering the case of Pete Peterson I was led to think upon another interesting politician/public figure of a similar stripe, Germany's Eugen Richter (1838-1906). Richter was the chief liberal thorn in Otto von Bismarck's side, opposing militarism, colonialism, and the heavy burdens placed upon the state by Bismarck's 'innovative' welfare and pension programs. Richter knew the German budget inside and out, and this knowledge enabled him to outmaneuver colleagues in the Reichstag for over thirty years. Solidly middle class, Richter loathed both the conservative landed class that was steering Germany toward destruction as well as the Socialists who sought to arrogate the power of the State for themselves and ends that stood in direct opposition to Richter's support for state non-intervention in the affairs of the people. His political career was a continual pitting of one against the other in order to further the ends of the bourgeoisie that paid the bills in imperial Germany. His death in 1906 cost Germany one of its ablest and most reasonable men.

When Richter is mentioned today -- rare as it is -- it is mostly within the context of his battle against German militarism, but Richter was no pacifist. His abiding belief was that militarism on the Prussian model was unnecessary and too expensive to maintain. Richter believed instead that free trade and entrepreneurship were greater contributors to national power than battleships and field artillery. It is from this view that we should remember his efforts, over many years, against the parliamentary forces arrayed against him. For example, after Sedan, when the new Imperial Constitution was drafted, it was Richter who stood against the infamous Article 63 and the subsequent 'septennial bill' that basically removed the Reichstag from any position of oversight vis-a-vis the army for the next seven years (which was then prolonged and extended). In The German Empire: 1871-1918 Hans-Ulrich Wehler writes,

Eugen Richter, speaking for the left-wing Liberals, accused the septennial law 'of preserving absolutism against the parliamentary system in military affairs.' He prophesied that 'this piece of absolutism will inevitably grow like a cancer.'

He was right, as the Kaiser subsequently consolidated his hold over the German armed forces until he attained virtually unchecked power.

And again, in battling with the conservatives over Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz's Naval Laws of 1898, Richter stood against the extension of German military power with great skill and prescience. In Dreadnought Robert K. Massie writes,

When the Bill reached its final debate on March 23, 1898, everyone knew it would pass. Eugen Richter of the liberal Radical Union, who opposed the Bill, prophesied: 'If it is true that...Neptune's trident belongs in our fist, then for the great Reich with its great big fist, a little fleet is not enough. We shall have to build more and more battleships...."

Again, Richter's criticism was spot on, as the 1898 Naval Laws kicked off a great naval arms race among the great powers of Europe and, more importantly, drove an immovable wedge between Germany and the United Kingdom, who took the German naval expansion as a direct affront.

Richter's manuevering over the course of three decades makes for fascinating reading for the political historian, but always one is mindful of his ultimate failure in the battle of hearts and minds, and this lends a touch of tragedy to his story. He could see so clearly where Germany was headed if it pursued the course of Prussian militarism, but he was powerless to stop it. The tragedies of two world wars, which blighted the next two generations of Europe, would follow.

What makes Richter a compelling figure is not so much his anti-militarism per se, but his recognition that, for the legislator, military issues are really budget issues, and in Richter's case, that could be expanded -- all political issues at the end of the day are budget issues.

Which brings me back to yesterday's post. Pete Peterson's life-long ambition has been to raise public awareness of the federal budget. In this, thus far, he and his accomplices have failed miserably. Republicans, traditionally the party of fiscal responsibility, have presided over one of the largest expansions of government expenditure ever seen -- witness the President's record-setting $3.1 trillion budget for FY2009. Simply put, there is no one left in Washington who will speak for fiscal responsibility. As one of his final acts upon the public stage, Mr. Peterson is now making one last attempt to waken the public to the condition of its fiscal affairs with the creation of the Peterson Foundation. Let us hope that the Foundation meets with greater success than Eugen Richter did.