Policies
The economists Ludwig Bamberger and Georg von Siemens, as well as the social liberal politician Eugen Richter were among the prime movers of the fusion, in the view of the coming accession of considered "liberal" Crown Prince Frederick William to the throne (which took place only in 1888). Richter aspired to build up a strong united liberal force in the Reichstag parliament, similar to the British Liberal Party under William Ewart Gladstone. The DFP supported the extension of parliamentarism in the German constitutional monarchy, separation of church and state as well as Jewish emancipation.
Under party chairman Franz August Schenk von Stauffenberg with his deputies Albert Hänel and Rudolf Virchow however, the Free-minded Party received disappointing 17.6% of the votes in the 1884 election, representing a drop of 3.6% from the combined parties' results in the previous 1881 election. The main beneficiaries of this defection were the conservative forces, supporting the protectionist, colonist and anti-socialist policies of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. In the 1887 election, the DFP again lost half of their seats, dropping down to 32 Reichstag mandates. Though urged by his wife Princess Royal Victoria, Crown Prince Frederick William did not dare to meet trouble with Bismarck by openly taking the party's side. His early death in 1888 and the accession of his son William II terminated all liberal hopes.
During the decay, the differences between "Progressives" and cente-right liberals became inconsolable. Upon Bismarck's demission in 1890, the party members lost their common adversary. In 1893 the party split in conflict over Chancellor Caprivi's policies into the Free-minded People's Party and the Free-minded Union. A re-union took place in 1910, when both further weakened liberal parties merged with the German People's Party to form the Progressive People's Party.
Read more about this topic: German Free-minded Party
Famous quotes containing the word policies:
“To deny the need for comprehensive child care policies is to deny a reality—that there’s been a revolution in American life. Grandma doesn’t live next door anymore, Mom doesn’t work just because she’d like a few bucks for the sugar bowl.”
—Editorial, The New York Times (September 6, 1983)
“We urgently need a debate about the best ways of supporting families in modern America, without blinders that prevent us from seeing the full extent of dependence and interdependence in American life. As long as we pretend that only poor or abnormal families need outside assistance, we will shortchange poor families, overcompensate rich ones, and fail to come up with effective policies for helping families in the middle.”
—Stephanie Coontz (20th century)
“Give a scientist a problem and he will probably provide a solution; historians and sociologists, by contrast, can offer only opinions. Ask a dozen chemists the composition of an organic compound such as methane, and within a short time all twelve will have come up with the same solution of CH4. Ask, however, a dozen economists or sociologists to provide policies to reduce unemployment or the level of crime and twelve widely differing opinions are likely to be offered.”
—Derek Gjertsen, British scientist, author. Science and Philosophy: Past and Present, ch. 3, Penguin (1989)