# 30. The German National Cause in Austria The parliamentary representation of the Germans

In Austria, the budget debate is less and less what it wants to be and should be according to an old custom: a true reflection of the views prevailing in the state, of the diverse political, national and economic forces. This year more than ever we had to lament the lack of great political ideas in our parties and the concealment of this lack through the exclusive spending of political small change. We Germans are the worst sufferers. While our opponents are in possession of power and thus know how to assert their claims, even without basing them on sound political principles, we are dependent on the way we represent our cause to give us the influence we deserve.

The Germans in Austria have experienced a peculiar fate in recent times. The time is not so far behind us when there was practically no national German party. As long as the leadership of the state was in their hands, the Germans pondered an abstract ideal of the state, which was simply based on the liberal template. They ignored the actual circumstances. It was believed that the spirit of the people could be guided by the idea, forgetting that the guiding raison d'état had to spring from the spirit of the people in reverse. There could be no question of favoring the German element, if only because no thought was given to the individuality of the people. One member of parliament even said at the time that the German and any other existing nationality was irrelevant for the Austrian state, which would have to adopt a purely Austrian nationality(!). But when the government passed into other hands, the German people soon found that liberalism could not be the appropriate weapon to effectively counter the onslaught from all sides. The national idea, of which very little had been incorporated into the principles of the liberal party, had to be called upon to help. Do not misunderstand us. We do not want to fall into the error of many of our younger politicians, who would prefer to deny the importance of this party altogether. We do not misjudge the amount of spirit that rests in this party, we know quite well that the factual work of parliament is mostly carried out by it; but there can be no doubt that it has never grasped the cultural mission that is incumbent on the German people in Austria. To mention just one thing: how miserable it is when nothing but purely utilitarian reasons (for official communication, etc.) are put forward time and again in favor of the German state language. This party lacks understanding for the fact that the non-German peoples of Austria, in order to reach that level of education which is a necessary requirement of modern times, must absorb what the German spirit and German labor have created, and that the level of education of a people cannot be reached in any other language than the language of the people concerned. What has no past has no future. If the peoples of Austria want to compete with the Germans, then they must above all catch up with the process of development that the Germans have undergone, they must acquire German culture in the German language, just as the Romans did with Greek education in Greek, and the Germans with Latin education in Latin. The process of development of the peoples, which is a necessary result of history, should be the point of view from which, for example, the struggle for the establishment of Slavic educational institutions is waged. But how petty these battles have often been waged by the liberal party! The liberals regarded the national cause only as a means of promoting liberalism. This forced the German people to form a party in which the national idea was paramount and which sought all its strength in the roots of the nation. Great were the hopes we all placed in the men who, as the embodiment of this idea, entered the House of Representatives and formed the German Club. Now, we thought, it must be shown what the German is capable of when he relies entirely on his Germanness, but only on this. And who could doubt that this ability would be great if it were only expressed in the right way? But if we ask ourselves now, after the proponents of this idea have had a number of years to demonstrate their strength, does the success even somewhat meet our expectations? then we must answer: no, decidedly not. The reason for this phenomenon is to be found in the fact that the German idea has not entered Parliament at the same time as the men. If it had, then its representatives, once they had united to form a closer alliance, would not have been allowed to separate again so easily. The German idea in its true form must prove strong enough to push all personal special interests, indeed all subordinate political interests, and finally the often petty interests of certain constituencies into the background. The fact that it was not able to do so in the German Club simply shows that the figure represented there was not the right one. And where has it ever been voiced in the House, where has a more important state action been placed in its perspective? For example, we placed the greatest hopes on Representative Steinwender. When did he fulfill them? We are referred to the Pino case. What Steinwender did there may be quite meritorious: it was not a national act; it was even quite indifferent to the national cause. Indeed, it seems to us that much of what this member of parliament put forward belonged anywhere but in parliament. The same applies to Mr. Pernerstorfer's best-known action, his hospital story. We have often admired the manly demeanor of this Member of Parliament, but he has hardly ever touched on the highest national interests of the Germans. Knotz treats the national question as if the Bohemian governorship were the only issue in question. In our opinion, this is not national politics after all, it is simply parochial politics, and there is no need to wonder that the ruling system cannot be shaken in this way. From the very beginning we did not like the fact that the German Club relied almost entirely on negations instead of the positive national idea. There was far too much focus on combating the mistakes that had previously been made, instead of improving the cause itself. Fighting those who thought differently gradually became the main thing, and defending one's own ideas took a back seat. Instead of uniting in what they had in common and moving with their special interests within the framework made necessary by a great cause, they allowed themselves to be driven as far apart as possible by differences that had nothing to do with the main issue.

Today we have Herbstians, Plenerians, Sturmians, Steinwendians, Schönerians, etc., who all know what divides them, but who pay no attention to what unites them. This is because they do not understand how to subordinate personal interests to objective interests. They do not realize that one does not become a statesman by putting forward purely subjective, arbitrary views, but by placing oneself at the service of a great idea that is well suited to dominate the times. The man has to serve the idea, not the idea the man. Otherwise one is simply swept away by historical development as a zero, for in the end ideas always prove to be stronger than men. The German party lacks that great trait which alone could exert the right effect on the opponent. Unfortunately, we also lack a journalistic representation of the national cause in the sense indicated. Apart from the weak means with which we dedicate ourselves to the cause, there is no organ today that works in this direction. But it is precisely a journal that is independent of all parliamentary parties that could be of most use to the cause. Such a journal, indeed only such a journal, could allow itself an independent critique of all parties.