German politics xth attempt

[Jo498]

59 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Look, it will die down once Eurabia and Islamization has been established, since those against it will then be an even greater minority.

As I said, people are losing their minds. There will never be Eurabia. Even if you believe that France, Britain and Germany are so weak that they will be "assimilated", you could trust in Poland, Hungary and Russia to prevent it.

[James Arryn]

I'm probably wrong, but it seems to me that other LW parties picked up almost as many seats as the RW party. Granted that's divided, but in terms of national temperature it's a bit more reassuring than the headlines seem to suggest. 

[Happy Ent]

I’m finding very different answers about what the most important question was.

https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/probleme-bundestagswahl-2017/ and https://www.wahl.de/themen/btw17 tell me it’s immigration (including refugees, integration), while tagesschau has Education, putting “immigration of refugees” (arguably, a much narrower topic than Immigration) much lower on the list.

My hunch is that (as in most Western countries) immigration is now the most important topic, which is documented by the FDP/AfD wins. I could be wrong.

(Remember that the 2017 Chatham House poll has a majority of Germans, just like most other European countries, wanting all further migration from majority Muslim countries stopped. The German institutes don’t pose that question to the German electorate, so we can’t really compare. People don’t have strong views on immigration or refugees — many Germans are refugees, or have close family relations with refugees, and immigration could easily by a positive contribution. But people have strong views about Islam, not much caring about if it’s home-grown, migrated, or fled.)

[Mindwalker]

@Notone (quoting doesn't work for me right now, sorry):

RE: 'moderate' Petry... I thought my "Yeah, right" made it clear what I think about this claim. Just to be clear, by "You go, girl" I meant. go on and destruct/ divide the party... I really don't care whether she's one fifth of a shade more moderate at all. Sadly, I think she is too isolated to really make them implode, but it will be fun to watch her antics anyway.

I pretty much concur with your assessment of the current situation and analysis of the parties involved.

[Mindwalker]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I'm probably wrong, but it seems to me that other LW parties picked up almost as many seats as the RW party. Granted that's divided, but in terms of national temperature it's a bit more reassuring than the headlines seem to suggest. 

No, for example, the Left Party gained votes from former Social Democrat voters, but lost almost as many to the AfD. Their overall gain was low. The only other leftist party (if you want to call them that) that gained a bit is the Green party. SPD and CDU lost big... FDP, AfD are new in parliament... overall, it has shifted to the right.

I just read the quota of women is also lower than during the last 20 years.

 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

No, for example, the Left Party gained votes from former Social Democrat voters, but lost almost as many to the AfD. Their overall gain was low. The only other leftist party (if you want to call them that) that gained a bit is the Green party. SPD and CDU lost big... FDP, AfD are new in parliament... overall, it has shifted to the right.

I just read the quota of women is also lower than during the last 20 years.

 

Ah, cheers, thanks for clarifying. So much for quickly researching political parties ethos via Wikipedia blurbs. How could that ever go wrong?

[Loge]

11 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

I’m finding very different answers about what the most important question was.

https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/probleme-bundestagswahl-2017/ and https://www.wahl.de/themen/btw17 tell me it’s immigration (including refugees, integration), while tagesschau has Education, putting “immigration of refugees” (arguably, a much narrower topic than Immigration) much lower on the list.

My hunch is that (as in most Western countries) immigration is now the most important topic, which is documented by the FDP/AfD wins. I could be wrong.

(Remember that the 2017 Chatham House poll has a majority of Germans, just like most other European countries, wanting all further migration from majority Muslim countries stopped. The German institutes don’t pose that question to the German electorate, so we can’t really compare. People don’t have strong views on immigration or refugees — many Germans are refugees, or have close family relations with refugees, and immigration could easily by a positive contribution. But people have strong views about Islam, not much caring about if it’s home-grown, migrated, or fled.)

Germany has never officially endorsed immigration. The was the guest worker program back in the 1950s and 60s, when Germany had agreements with Italy, Spain, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey. It allowed / invited people from those countries to come to Germany for work, but they were supposed to go back to their home countries after a couple of years. The latter part was never enforced, though, so many of those "guest workers" became immigrants. Nowadays citizens of EU countries are free to settle in Germany, but you rarely hear complaints about that. Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East usually can't legally move to Germany. But there's one big loophole: asylum. Article 16a of the grundgesetz says: "Politisch verfolgte genießen Asylrecht." Over the years some fine print has been added but the right of asylum still stands. And the courts have interpreted it such that everybody who shows up at the German border or on an airport who says the word "Asyl" must be let into the country. Of course there's a lengthy procedure where their claim of refugee status is checked but apparently the vast majority stay in the country even if they are refused refugee status. So, when there's talk about "immigration" it's always about immigration of refugees (more accurately: people entering the country claiming refugee status). Unlike the UK, it's not about freedom of movement in the EU.

[Jo498]

The FDP is not really "tough in immigration". Besides the general warning that this party has switched almost any position to its opposite if it was politically useful in the past, what they want is an "immigration law". As Loge says, Germany never really systematically ruled immigration in the way countries like Australia do. Nowadays some of the leftists still seem to tend to "open borders for everyone" (so they find the suggested laws too strict because it will pick the able and educated, not the needy) but the rightists (not only AfD but also CSU and parts of the CDU) don't really want such a law because they uphold that Germany is not an "immigration country" (Einwanderungsland) like US or Australia.

For the FDP the demands of international big business will always trump even modest nationalism/protectionism. Qualified immigrants lower wages because there is more competition for a certain number of jobs, so they like it. The rightwing parties reacted to "green cards" (suggested by the the red-green government) with "Kinder statt Inder". Still, I think it is a valid point that immigration policy and humanitarian help have to be distinguished (and both the rightists and the leftists tend to confound them to suit their purposes). The good Samaritan helped the guy who had been robbed and even paid his bill at the inn but he did not offer him to live forever in his house.

[Happy Ent]

Jo, Loge, I get all that. I was merely trying to reconcile some widely differing polls about how important Germans view immigration. In some polls, it’s the most important question by a mile. In others, it’s way down the list. I don’t know how that happens, and tentatively suggest differences in wordings (refugee is a very positive word in German), which might trigger different reactions among respondents. I could be wrong.

[Mindwalker]

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

Jo, Loge, I get all that. I was merely trying to reconcile some widely differing polls about how important Germans view immigration. In some polls, it’s the most important question by a mile. In others, it’s way down the list. I don’t know how that happens, and tentatively suggest differences in wordings (refugee is a very positive word in German), which might trigger different reactions among respondents. I could be wrong.

Both these polls have Immigration (Einwanderung/ Zuwanderung/ Flüchtlinge) as the most important issue, social justice as second. Here https://www.wahl.de/themen/btw17

they don't list by importance, but the percentage numbers show it. (OK, immigration and social justice have almost equal importance.) I'm sure different phrasing will change results somewhat.

[Loge]

Hmm. The Tagesschau data (ARD Deutschlandtrend) and the Berliner Morgenpost poll are by the same institute (Infratest Dimap). One presents people with a list of topics and asks about their importance for their decision in the elections. People can then rate them very important, important, less important or not important. The figures you quoted are "very important" only. The Berliner Morgenpost poll lets people name the two problems that need to be addressed most urgently in the next four years. Its interesting how different the resulting different rankings are.

ETA: ARD Deutschlandtrend has "immigration of refugees" and "integration of refugees" as separate categories, the Morgenpost bins them together

[Jo498]

The immigration/refugees issue is certainly important. However, I think after 2015 and early 2016 it cooled down a little. I cannot back this up with stats but I think there are several factors at work. It is simply true that especially in the East there is a deep seated antipathy towards foreigners that seems almost independent of actual contact with them. (There are almost now foreigners in rural regions in the East but people are xenophobic anyway. More than 10 years ago, probably around 2003, a professor who taught in Berlin or Potsdam then told me that foreign (black or brown or with such a spouse) looking colleagues or visiting scientists were advised not to move to the rural region around Potsdam because the xenophobia was so high.)

Then there are people who are apparently seeing their neighborhoods falling to pieces, apparently because of the prevalence of some kind of foreigners, usually not refugees but rather "balkanese" gangs who moved in since the Schengen expansion in 2007. That's where you get second generation or other established people with immigrant background voting AfD! They live in a working class neighborhood that is turning into a violent slum because of more recent gang warfare.

But generally I think that immigration is actually more important as a focus or projection of general frustration and a deep feeling of powerlessness. About 50% of the AfD voters don't really care about the contents but they want to give the established parties a big middle finger. Recall that the AfD was founded as an anti-EU and "no support for broke Greece" party. Basically, it is 15 years of "TINA" policy, first with Schroeder and far more clearly with Merkel. With the utter failure of the Social Democrats to show even a nominal alternative option and the flexibility of Merkel and the opportunism of Greens and FDP it seems virtually impossible to get rid of her. Imagine how people who see that everything is going to pieces around them (rural East, large cities, jobless, precarious or poor senior) and being told everyday not only by Merkel's campaigners but all the maintream media that Germany is doing great and we are all rich! They'd do any to feel a little less powerless.

[Alarich II]

On ‎26‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 9:06 AM, Jo498 said:

For the FDP the demands of international big business will always trump even modest nationalism/protectionism. Qualified immigrants lower wages because there is more competition for a certain number of jobs, so they like it.

First: I don't think that's true, at least not from my experience with those who vote for the FDP or their MPs. Perhaps you could name an example where this was the case, it'd be easier to see what you mean. If we look at how the electorate of the FDP is made up and what they actually want, it is never about big Business, but rather the SMEs, freelancers and self-employed. Yes, lower taxes, less bureaucracy are important to those who have to deal with it every day on a personal basis. But big business was always the concern for CDU and SPD: For the SPD, because that's where you'll find the highest rate of unionization and lucrative posts on the board of directors, for the CDU mainly for the same reasons + donations. Also because traditionally these parties were in charge, so that's where lobbying efforts would have to concentrate. To describe German economic policies since 1945 (in very broad terms) is not so hard, because SPD and CDU have always had the same general idea: (1) provide stability at home, (2) protect your interests abroad, (3) get unions and businesses to cooperate in order to achieve (1) and (2).

Second: I find it rather funny that of all parties, the FDP is the only one to get flak for changing positions to gain or retain more power. Well, as it happens, society changes and so do parties and so will their positions on many things.

The CDU was dancing back and forth on the question of nuclear energy. The Greens found it in them to vote for a war in the Balkans. The SED renamed itself and decided that shooting people on a wall was maybe a little over the top. The SPD changed with their Godesberger Program, later they signalled left, then swerved right with their Agenda2010. But somehow these are obviously all very noble and understandable, even laudable changes in political positions. But when the FDP as a small party has to compromise in a coalition, they are "Wendehals" and what not.

Obviously, some figures on the left and the right want to go back to the trenches of 1960s/70s political landscape. Wagenknecht, Gauland et. al are like the Japanese soldiers found on some remote islands who didn't know that the war was over for 20 years. But I think that for the majority of the electorate, immigration is a fact of life, only the question how to steer it and how to deal with the consequences remain

[Happy Ent]

25 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

But I think that for the majority of the electorate, immigration is a fact of life, only the question how to steer it and how to deal with the consequences remain

This is an interesting formulation. Allow me to start there.

The desire of others to immigrate to Germany is a fact of life. The most important question for this generation exactly is “how to steer it and how to deal with the consequences.”

(My solution would be to prevent it, to advocate resettlement, and double down on Enlightenment values and liberal democracy. Others will disagree and want to open the borders and advocate multiculturalism and the values of inclusion and tolerance. These are real questions, with incompatible answers, and where intelligent and decent people ought to disagree, just on pretty much every other question of politics.)

These decisions will have repercussions that utterly dwarf all other political decisions, and have larger consequences for topic X than vice versa.

(Because demography and culture will determine education, welfare, labour market, research, crime, terrorism, surveillance, etc. more than the other way around. The only question where they may be a two-way street is welfare. Germany can decide to no longer be a welfare state, and turn in the US, which might curb immigration from MENA. But I don’t really believe that. Even a laissez-fair FDP utopia will be a less shitty place to live in than all of Africa.)

—

Now, the above formulation makes it clear that the immigration question is the sine qua non for the future of Germany, and that the German electorate is completely correct in its intuition of being scared shitless about the very unclear signals they are receiving from their overlords. The only parties who do not get this are now in government, and write the newspapers. What could possibly go wrong.

[Alarich II]

The "interesting" formulation may be due to my English skills. What I mean is this: we have Immigration to Germany. From very different countries and for very different reasons. But it is there. So that's a fact of life.

So the question becomes how to deal with it and I agree with you, this will be a discussion about values. Now, we do have a constitution so that's probably a good starting point to actually define what we want.

But it is not helpful to do so without thinking about who comes here and why. Because not all immigrants come for the same reasons, not all immigrants come from the same countries, not all immigrants have the same cultural and educational background it makes no sense to talk about Immigration as if it there were easy solutions.

So in that light I find some of your comments utterly naive. Lets take the first:

- My solution would be to prevent it, 

Your solution lacks the most important thing any solution needs and that's a clear idea how to implement it. Can we prevent immigration from France, Bulgaria or Romania? No, because we are bound by international treaties. Can we prevent People from illegally crossing the border? Probably not, you may be aware that we have practical experience with a massive borderwall and even that did not keep everyone in.

to advocate resettlement,

Yes, you can advocate a lot, but you have to enforce it. The problem with enforcement in any liberal Democracy are those pesky rights and our constitution, so yeah, liberal Democracy also means limited means of enforcement unless you want to advocate for an authoritarian police state with less liberty. Which you, I guess, abhor.

and double down on Enlightenment values and liberal democracy

And this really takes the cake in terms of naivete. Sounds really good, but how? How? Especially, since not only immigrants but also many Germans have Problems with enlightenment values and liberal democracy. Same-sex marriage should be no problem at all in a liberal Democracy - huge problem in Germany! People fall all the time for the charismatic, authoritarian leader. Look at people like Hoecke who in his speeches imitates Goebbels but tousands are chanting Höcke! Höcke!

The problem here is that you don't actually say what exactly enlightenment values and liberal Democracy are and how you would translate this from a hollow phrase into actual, workable policy? The problem with liberal Democracies is that you have to cast your lofty ideas into laws that work, that are constitutional and that can be applied to real life. So what you call a solution is no solution at all. It is simply a wish-list.

Now, the above formulation makes it clear that Immigration is the sine qua non for the future of Germany

Not unless you believe that a very small minority will determine as you say demography and culture. Yes, many people are scared, but when you look at their circumstances there's very little actual uncertainty. So the sine qua non is a bit much. We are not Lebanon that has 40% refugees within it's borders, we don't have post-war amounts of refugees. Of course you can go back to the days of cultural identity and make that your pet issue, like indeed many authoritarian parties like FN, AfD Lega Nord etc. do. But that can't be a a solution for a liberal Democracy. We do have a set of constitutional values, but within those borders, culture is what the citizen makes of it, not what the state dictates.

[Jo498]

There is no fixed set of enlightenment values. If we put the beginning of the "enlightenment" around John Locke there were about 150 years of enlightenment "compatible" with slavery for many of its proponents, more than 200 years without women's suffrage and about 300 years of enlightenment before anybody thought that same-sex marriage could even be thinkable. Now it is supposed to be a self-evident truth that anyone not supporting SSM is some kind of nazi. (So we were almost all nazis 25 years ago.) It was enlightened for many to put the lazy poor into workhouses in the 1800s and advocate eugenics in the early 1900s etc. Basically, the core of liberal democracy is mostly formal and procedural (that's obviously both its strength and its weakness.) If 70% are against SSM, is it democratic to disregard them? If 60% vote democratically to introduce Sharia Law?

But I think it would be derailing the thread to consider the fateful dialectics of enlightenment that are mostly ignored in the current debates. But it cannot be denied that liberal democracy can destroy itself if if does not manage to offer the citizens enough that they don't go for parties who would rather abolish (at least some parts of) liberal democracy, be they reactionary right wingers, extreme leftists or djihadists.

 

[Jo498]

3 hours ago, Alarich II said:

First: I don't think that's true, at least not from my experience with those who vote for the FDP or their MPs. Perhaps you could name an example where this was the case, it'd be easier to see what you mean. If we look at how the electorate of the FDP is made up and what they actually want, it is never about big Business, but rather the SMEs, freelancers and self-employed. Yes, lower taxes, less bureaucracy are important to those who have to deal with it every day on a personal basis. But big business was always the concern for CDU and SPD: For the SPD, because that's where you'll find the highest rate of unionization and lucrative posts on the board of directors, for the CDU mainly for the same reasons + donations. Also because traditionally these parties were in charge, so that's where lobbying efforts would have to concentrate. To describe German economic policies since 1945 (in very broad terms) is not so hard, because SPD and CDU have always had the same general idea: (1) provide stability at home, (2) protect your interests abroad, (3) get unions and businesses to cooperate in order to achieve (1) and (2).

Second: I find it rather funny that of all parties, the FDP is the only one to get flak for changing positions to gain or retain more power. Well, as it happens, society changes and so do parties and so will their positions on many things.

The CDU was dancing back and forth on the question of nuclear energy. The Greens found it in them to vote for a war in the Balkans. The SED renamed itself and decided that shooting people on a wall was maybe a little over the top. The SPD changed with their Godesberger Program, later they signalled left, then swerved right with their Agenda2010. But somehow these are obviously all very noble and understandable, even laudable changes in political positions.

You will find me attacking the SPD and the Greens even more harshly for their behavior. It is true that other parties have also made 180 degree turnarounds. But mostly in the last 15 years or so. The FDP has been doing this since the late 1960s and lived very well on it for decades.

While of course they use the narrative of standing up for the little master carpenter or freelance writer, the FDP is very clearly the party oft the top 1-10% (not master carpenters but rather tax advisors etc. check out the regions where they get most of the votes; it is usually the richest regions in the whole republic, e.g. most of the Taunus region north of Frankfurt where the fat cat banksters, tax evasion guys etc. live.) I am not aware of any laws the FDP put forward recently that helped contain international big business in favor of more local smaller businesses (e.g. closing tax havens in the EU the sawmill in the next village will not benefit from but Ikea does).

In the last 35 years the  FDP has been the strongest factor in the neoliberalization of politics in Germany. The so-called Lambsdorff-Papier in the early 1980s was the beginning of that. It is true that CDU and SPD used to be  industry-friendly but they at least pretend to care for workers getting decent employment and enforced general notions of solidarity (at least until recently when they became neoliberalized as well). Whereas the FDP has often shown open contempt for anyone not smart or lucky enough to secure a good job. They are the people who inherited millions and are utterly convinced that they fully deserve it. (Whereas someone living on welfare is exhibiting roman decadence.) They are the anti-solidarity party. For me they are by far the most contemptible of the bunch (although some single persons in the AfD or CDU might even be more disgusting). If there is going to be a Jamaica I really hope it will be the final kiss of death by "Mutti" for them and they will get below 5% again.

More general, here is a pretty good analysis of the dire situation

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/afd-germany-sdp-social-democracy-jeremy-corbyn

[Alarich II]

Regarding the change of political position, that's probably because you haven't looked closely enough. What the left doesn't forgive the FDP was the switch from SPD to CDU which effectively brought Helmuth Kohl to power. We could probably fill the Rhine with all the crocodile tears that the SPD shed over this but in the end the FDP just like any other party doesn't owe eternal allegiance to their coalition partner. Yes, today Helmuth Schmidt is treated like the patron saint of the SPD, but in the end during his active carreer he was very much a pragmatic sob who didn't hesitate to stick in the knife. So when you look at how this narrative on the left about the FDP came into existence it's basically just part of the Helmuth Schmidt victim-myth.

Concerning your second point about the 1% it seems to me that you have some ideological knives to grind rather than offering a meaningful analysis about who votes for FDP and why. So I'll just pick out the claim that "In the last 35 years the  FDP has been the strongest factor in the neoliberalization of politics in Germany"

Which begs the question: during those years, which policies were explicitly FDP demands that had such an important impact as to make the FDP the strongest factor in neoliberalization and not the CDU or the SPD? From the election 1983 to today, they only had more than 10% on three occasions, two of them within the last decade, so that claim needs a little more backup than just the Lambsdorff-Papier.

But maybe you could first define what you actually mean by neoliberalization of politics, so that I can better understand what you mean by that specifically.

[Loge]

Neoliberalism has been the dominant political doctrine across the Western world these last 35 years. Blaming that on old count Otto is giving him a bit too much credit. As for the breakup of the coalition in 1982, it had been dead coalition walking for some time. Schmidt barely survived the 1982 SPD party convention in Munich, when it became obvious that the party no longer supported his positions on foreign policy and defence. After that it was just maneuvering to let the other side look bad when the coalition breaks up, and the FDP ended up being painted the villain. The left has had a bizarre obsession with the FDP ever since, but that's not based on facts. The coalition between SPD and FDP was formed to enable a new foreign policy, as the old Hallstein doctrine was no longer viable. That was fulfilled by the time Brandt resigned. After that the coalition went on out of inertia and because the Christian Democrats thought they could win a majority on their own. Had Albrecht run for chancellor instead of Strauss in 1980, it probably would have worked. It nearly did for Kohl in 1976. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Meanwhile The reason I have respect for Gysi and Kipping and not so much for Lafontaine and Wagenknecht.

And I really can't understand why people here are defending those two lackwits. And I reiterate my stance, that the so called Left is not electable while Lafo and Wagenknecht are running the show.

On the brighter side of things, another extra 3 song.