🇩🇪 German state & local elections

[Beezer]

The Merkel loyalists are gearing up for war as well. Daniel Günther, the popular minister-president of Jamaica Schleswig-Holstein has today dismissed the criticism of Merz and Koch. He spoke of "old men" who would like "to settle old scores" and I really cannot say that he's wrong with this interpretation. Honestly, it's a disaster for the CDU if people there still listen to guys like Koch.

Why should they listen to Merkel and her supporters instead, in light of her electoral track record? The CDU is moving from electoral disaster to electoral disaster. The only reason why Merkel has been in power is because there have been no serious alternatives to the Grand Coalition and because the SPD is even weaker. 3 of Merkel's 4 election results are among the bottom 5 in the history of the party. She has completely hollowed out the party ideologically and her handpicked successor has turned out to be one of the biggest political duds in recent history.

[Middle-aged Europe]

3 of Merkel's 4 election results are among the bottom 5 in the history of the party.

Expecting the CDU/CSU to win results like its 1976 when there were only three parties in Parliament instead of six is a bit unrealistic IMO. Historically speaking one could argue that the CDU's electoral decline had started with the 1987 Bundestag election, because since then the party never managed to win more than 45% of the vote, something they regularly did in the preceding period between 1953 and 1983 when they came in above 45% seven out of nine times.

While it's to some extent true that Merkel moved the party to the center and left room for the AfD on the right, I wouldn't say that it's solely her "fault". Society - and as a result politics - has changed too and that's something you can't really influence or change back.

[Pick Up the Phone]

The Merkel loyalists are gearing up for war as well. Daniel Günther, the popular minister-president of Jamaica Schleswig-Holstein has today dismissed the criticism of Merz and Koch. He spoke of "old men" who would like "to settle old scores" and I really cannot say that he's wrong with this interpretation. Honestly, it's a disaster for the CDU if people there still listen to guys like Koch.

Why should they listen to Merkel and her supporters instead, in light of her electoral track record? The CDU is moving from electoral disaster to electoral disaster. The only reason why Merkel has been in power is because there have been no serious alternatives to the Grand Coalition and because the SPD is even weaker. 3 of Merkel's 4 election results are among the bottom 5 in the history of the party. She has completely hollowed out the party ideologically and her handpicked successor has turned out to be one of the biggest political duds in recent history.

Why they should listen to Merkel? Because Merkel is the only reason why the CDU still polls between 25% and 30% at the federal level and hasn't suffered the tragic fate of the SPD yet. She is still the most popular politician in Germany and many CDU voters are primarily Merkel voters who would hardly cast their vote for a Chancellor Merz, let alone for anyone else from the own guard. It's not her election results that should matter (you really cannot expect her to get Kohl-like numbers with six parties in parliament) but rather the fact that the CDU remains in a strong strategic position. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; and in a party system where all other parties get around 15%, the (centrist) party that regularly gets 25% will probably govern for ages. I've never voted for Merkel or her party - and never will - but she's way smarter than most of her opponents.

She also didn't "hollow out" anything by the way, she just modernized the CDU, led it into the 21st century, and got rid of positions for which there was no majority anymore. And this "electoral disaster to electoral disaster" narrative is likewise contestable. First, it was a given that the AfD would get strong results in Eastern Germany, especially in comparison to the previous elections in 2014 (read: before the so-called 'refugee crisis'). Secondly, the last results were actually mixed. Sure, there were losses in Thuringia and Brandenburg, but also a convincing victory in Saxony and +6% in Bremen. And in Brandenburg, the CDU will probably (and despite its defeat) join the next government and strengthen its position in the Bundesrat even further.

[Republican Left]

a. What happened to the FDP?

b. Why is Germany going to the left or greens, aren't things pretty good in Germany?

[Beezer]

Why they should listen to Merkel? Because Merkel is the only reason why the CDU still polls between 25% and 30% at the federal level and hasn't suffered the tragic fate of the SPD yet.

Where is the evidence that millions of voters are sticking with the CDU because of Merkel? Or rather that this number is far higher than those who have abandoned the party because of its clear lack of a conservative agenda. I simply reject the notion that many voters are wedded to the CDU because of the chancellor. Just look at the basic statistics. The party is far weaker in terms of support today than it was before Merkel. So where are all the people that Merkel supposedly brought into the party? There is ample space to grow on the right, an ideological area that has been ceded to the AfD. A slight tick to the right has, in my view at least, a far bigger potential electoral upside than trying to out-green the Greens.

The SPD is suffering from a variety of other ailments that are similar to the CDU's but have been exacerbated by the fact that the party has had to contend with two challengers on the left for the past 15 odd years. Add to that the lack of a coherent strategy on its traditional core issue of the welfare state and you get a 15% party. But Merkel's CDU is quickly getting there for similar reasons...

She also didn't "hollow out" anything by the way, she just modernized the CDU, led it into the 21st century, and got rid of positions for which there was no majority anymore.

Is the point of a party to just follow public opinion and discard positions just because some polls indicate they are no longer favored by a majority? Moreover, Merkel has abandoned long-held views from one day to the next. Nuclear energy, same-sex marriage...sorry but there is no visible and coherent strategy to modernize the party behind her actions but rather a complete lack of foresight while being driven by the polling of the day.

There moreover is plenty of potential for a conservative party to celebrate electoral wins in an era of globalization as people are looking for some traditional societal moorings. Doesn't mean you have to criminalize homosexuality or anything like that but just copying the left's position on immigration and their Familienbild is not what I would described as a sound strategy for a center-right party.

And that's where we get to the point of "governing". What is the point in governing if you fail to enact any policies that have your party's handwriting on it? Can you cite a single policy over the past 14 years that can be described as a stated CDU goal which was then enacted as a result of Merkel's time in office? She has governed as a center-left chancellor on virtually every topic. Is the CDU these days all about "office seeking" rather than "policy seeking"? And even in that regard Merkel has failed as she provided the SPD and CSU with the best ministerial posts after the most recent election.

And this "electoral disaster to electoral disaster" narrative is likewise contestable.

Look at the CDU's standing in its former heartland of Baden-Württemberg. Merkels "modernization" of the party seems to have played really well in that part of the country. And the demise in EGermany can't just be brushed aside either. You have a leftist government in power in Thuringia, yet the CDU still manages to lose 11 points?

I will acknowledge that catch-all parties across Europe are suffering from similar challenges. The days of the CDU winning 40-45% of the vote are long over. Great politicians are able to modernize a party, however, without completely removing its central ideological tenets.

[Middle-aged Europe]

a. What happened to the FDP?

b. Why is Germany going to the left or greens, aren't things pretty good in Germany?

The electoral success of the Left in Thuringia is a Thuringia-specific phenomenon which can be attributed to the personal popularity of incumbent minister-president Bodo Ramelow. The Left did in fact lose a lot of votes in the recent Brandenburg and Saxony elections.

The current success of the Greens can be attributed to the unpopularity of the governing parties CDU/CSU and SPD with "nativist" CDU/SPD voters moving to the AfD and more "progressive" voters to the Greens. Some political scientists have also attempted to explain this with the old class conflict-based Right-vs.-Left dichotomy being overcome with a new Nationalist-vs.-Globalist divide, bringing trouble for the more traditional parties like CDU and SPD because they don't have such clear-cut stances on these issues. In addition, climate change had become a major political issue in Germany in the wake of the 2018 heat waves and the subsequent rise of new movements like Fridays/Parents/Scientists/Entrepeneurs for Future and the Extinction Rebellion. And finally, the Greens have - at least for the moment - managed to overcome and pacify their traditional infightings between the two major wings giving the appearance that they have've got their sh**t together for a change.

As for the FDP, they took a nose-dive in the polls right around the time they let the Jamaica coalition talks explode and they've never really recovered from that. To some extent, they've received the image that they shy away from assuming responsibility for the country when push comes to shove.



Anyway, due to a decision by the electoral committee in the city Weimar, the FDP has lost four votes in Thuringia today meaning that they're currently hovering a single vote above the 5% threshold.

After receiving some flak over his openness to talk with the Left, CDU state leader Mike Mohring has also started to float the idea of a CDU-SPD-Green-FDP minority government as an alternative to a Left Party minority government in Thuringia. It's at this point unclear how he's planning to get at least a few votes from the Left Party (assuming that AfD members would rather commit seppuku than to help a government which includes Grees and SPD into office) necessary to get him elected minister-president, so maybe it's only a tactical ploy.

[Pick Up the Phone]

After receiving some flak over his openness to talk with the Left, CDU state leader Mike Mohring has also started to float the idea of a CDU-SPD-Green-FDP minority government as an alternative to a Left Party minority government in Thuringia. It's at this point unclear how he's planning to get at least a few votes from the Left Party (assuming that AfD members would rather commit seppuku than to help a government which includes Grees and SPD into office) necessary to get him elected minister-president, so maybe it's only a tactical ploy.

Indeed, it would be amazing to see the 'anti-establishment' AfD vote for an all-party coalition that involves their greatest enemies. My guess: The CDU leadership has told Mohring that his "I-will-talk-to-the-LINKE" statement was stupid and provided great assistance for Merz and his camarilla. So he now needs to pretend that he's a serious contender for the position of minister-president. It's wonderfully delusional if we consider that (a) SPD and GRÜNE have clearly stated that they'll support Ramelow and (b) the FDP is currently only one single vote beyond the threshold line. Full results are expected to be released on November 7 by the way.

Meanwhile, more and more CDU politicians come out against Merz/Koch and their backstabbing. The influential chairman of the Bundestag's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Norbert Röttgen, and 14 other MPs have published a joint statement today in which they claim that "over the last days, there was not a single substantial contribution to the renewal of the CDU. The behavior of certain individuals was extremely harmful and self-destructive." It's all too obvious who they allude to.

[Pick Up the Phone]

Why they should listen to Merkel? Because Merkel is the only reason why the CDU still polls between 25% and 30% at the federal level and hasn't suffered the tragic fate of the SPD yet.

Where is the evidence that millions of voters are sticking with the CDU because of Merkel? Or rather that this number is far higher than those who have abandoned the party because of its clear lack of a conservative agenda. I simply reject the notion that many voters are wedded to the CDU because of the chancellor. Just look at the basic statistics. The party is far weaker in terms of support today than it was before Merkel. So where are all the people that Merkel supposedly brought into the party? There is ample space to grow on the right, an ideological area that has been ceded to the AfD. A slight tick to the right has, in my view at least, a far bigger potential electoral upside than trying to out-green the Greens.

The SPD is suffering from a variety of other ailments that are similar to the CDU's but have been exacerbated by the fact that the party has had to contend with two challengers on the left for the past 15 odd years. Add to that the lack of a coherent strategy on its traditional core issue of the welfare state and you get a 15% party. But Merkel's CDU is quickly getting there for similar reasons...

Where do you see a “lack of a conservative agenda”? Is it just because Merkel, over the course of almost 14 years, got rid of some (mostly symbolic and anachronistic) elements of the Kohl-CDU? Was it really a mistake to give in on same-sex marriage (an issue which 75-80% of the population support), to abolish conscription (something that almost all European countries did years ago), or to finally abandon nuclear energy (which many people also supported in the wake of the Fukushima incident)? The strange thing about this argument is that most of these political manoeuvers took place many years ago (e.g. Energiewende: 2010+; Conscription: 2011), but Merkel nonetheless got an excellent result in 2013. Since then, her government has in many areas even become more conservative (just look at the most recent legislation on asylum policy) but to no avail. Of course, this is fundamentally a matter of perspective. If one regards the AfD as a conservative party, then the CDU is certainly rather leftist in character… but as I said, not the absolute electoral share does matter. The relative strategic position within the party system does.

Also, you got my point a bit wrong here. The point is not the number of people that Merkel brought to the party, but rather the number of people that Merkel prevented from leaving the party. Again, look at the SPD and you see what kind of difference the mere projection of competent leadership can make. There is a reason that one party polls around 25% and the other around 15% - and this reason is not primarily based on policy but on perception. On the one hand, there’s the chancellor (still highly popular; well known; symbolizing stability and managerial skill); on the other hand, there’s the SPD chairman/chairwoman (low name recognition; no political capital; changes every few months). I know many people for whom this is much more important than some policy details. And with regard to Thuringia, you can turn the argument around: It might be the case that the CDU actually lost quite a few voters because the conservatism of the state party prevented it from collaborating with the LINKE (e.g. center-right voters who nonetheless think that Ramelow is a great minister-president and should be re-elected).

As far as I know, there is no empirical proof that center-right parties benefit from becoming ‘more conservative’. Rather the contrary seems to be the case – at least when it comes to electoral results in Western and Northern Europe (Kriesi et al. are currently working on this).

And this "electoral disaster to electoral disaster" narrative is likewise contestable.

Look at the CDU's standing in its former heartland of Baden-Württemberg. Merkels "modernization" of the party seems to have played really well in that part of the country. And the demise in EGermany can't just be brushed aside either. You have a leftist government in power in Thuringia, yet the CDU still manages to lose 11 points?

I will acknowledge that catch-all parties across Europe are suffering from similar challenges. The days of the CDU winning 40-45% of the vote are long over. Great politicians are able to modernize a party, however, without completely removing its central ideological tenets.

Baden-Württemberg has nothing to do with Merkel and everything to do with the horrible leadership of former minister-president Stefan Mappus and the arrogance of the state party that took too many things for granted. If anything, Baden-Württemberg perfectly illustrates the danger posed by being too conservative and clinging to outdated positions: Once another credible alternative emerges (like the GRÜNEN in Baden-Württemberg), many moderate voters, among them people who have voted CDU for decades, decide to jump ship. Eastern Germany is an entirely different story and both major parties have suffered massive losses there. Yet this was to be expected given the fact that the CDU started from an extremely high level and protest votes are much more plentiful there. It is also nothing new or Merkel-related but rather a long-term trend: The CDU in Saxony/Thuringia lost 15.6%/8.0% in the 2004 elections already. It lost in all but one election since then.

In the end, the interesting question is not if the CDU could do better. The question is if the CDU could do better without Merkel/with Merz – and I really doubt it. Merz would be a disaster for the party and could potentially destroy it.

[republicanbayer]

The CDU's shift to the left over the last decade has put them in a horrible strategic position and I don't think there's any solution to that.

In her first term, her coalition with the SPD forced her to the left, she abandoned many of her campaign promises (tax cuts), but by shifting to the left, she managed to take away a lot of votes from the SPD. The CDU also lost a lot of votes because of that - 2009 was their worst performance ever back then - but these voters went to the FDP. Back then, the FDP was the CDU’s natural junior partner. So losing votes to them while gaining votes from the SPD was a very clever strategy, that helped the CDU-FDP coalition getting a majority in 2009.

Over the next four years her shift to the left continued (getting rid of the Wehrpflicht, phasing out of nuclear energy and saving the Euro, while again not delivering on tax cuts). As a junior partner, the FDP supported all these policies. So the only viable conservative alternative to the CDU vanished (the AfD was just getting founded back then). Merkel got back all of the conservative vote from the FDP in 2013 while holding the centrist and some of the center-left vote, which is why she just fell short of an outright majority – something that happened only once before in German history.

Her strategy went well for two more years, but the refugee crisis was a turning point. By letting all these people in, many conservatives left the CDU for good and joined the AfD. For the first time, there was a right-wing alternative to the CDU, especially one that would not be a coalition-partner and therefore make it harder to get a majority. Furthermore, the FDP reemerged as a viable alternative for CDU voters who were unhappy with their current policies. In her third term, Merkel moved the party further to the left than ever before, not only due to the refugee situation, but also because of leftist economic policies. By doing so, she kept moderate and some leftist voters while losing conservative voters in huge numbers to the AfD and FDP. The 2017 election was the worst in CDU history.

Over the last two years, some people – certainly not Merkel, but Merz, Söder (until the 2018 Bavarian election) and even AKK – tried to move the party back to the right in order to get back voters from the FDP and AfD. Since none of them have real influence in the Merkel government, all they can do is talk about being conservative, the CDU-led government is still very much center-leftist. So they are not really getting back any voters from the right, but alienating moderate voters. The emergence of the Green Party offered a nice alternative for these people.

As of today, many conservative CDU-voters have already left the party, some of them for good. Many of those who vote for the CDU are moderate swing-voters, who might vote for the Greens the next time. The electorate in general, but also long-time CDU voters and members have followed Merkel’s lead to the left. Merkel managed to open the CDU in all directions – which is good as long as the voters come your way. Now that the voters are leaving, they are leaving the party in all directions.   

[rob in cal]

  I often wonder what would have happened to the CDU had Merkel been like the Cameron/May government in the UK and basically accepted very few of the 2015 refugees/migrants.  How many voters would have left the CDU over that? And how many current AFD voters would still be with the CDU/CSU?

[urutzizu]

I often wonder what would have happened to the CDU had Merkel been like the Cameron/May government in the UK and basically accepted very few of the 2015 refugees/migrants.

We couldn't have, simply due to geographic reasons. The UK is extremely lucky because it is a Island Country with its own Border Regime that can effectively control who comes in and who does not. We are a big Central European country with large permeable land borders, part of Schengen. Even if Merkel tried to keep the Borders closed, they would have still come in similar numbers, and once they are on German soil, they have a legal right to apply for Asylum, and once that has happened, then thats de facto it in 99% of cases. We would have still been by far the most attractive country in Europe due to our Economic Situation and unemployment rate. Merkels actions increased they numbers, yeah, but we would have still received numbers in the upper hundreds of thousands at least, and the rise of the AFD would have still happened in a similar fashion, though perhaps not quite as strongly.

Anyway right-wing Populist parties have risen basically everywhere in Europe, even places that received comparatively far less refugees (look at the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Finland). The immigration issue is there even without the refugees. In fact, the main Turning Point on Refugee sentiment in Germany, the Köln sex attacks (and for that matter the Paris Terrorist Attacks), were mostly not even committed by refugees, but rather north africans who had been there for quite a while already. The AFD was inevitable, perhaps 2-3% less than now, but still inevitable in my opinion.

One more thing: the above exchange is really bizzare if you think about it. The Green supporter defending a "conservative" chancellor, while the conservatives/right-wingers are attacking her. Its normal though in the strange world of politics that is Germany. Merkel and many of her policies are by many accounts actually more popular among the Greens then amongst her own people. Goes the question whether she can even be described as "conservative" or "centre-right" anymore.

[President Johnson]

I often wonder what would have happened to the CDU had Merkel been like the Cameron/May government in the UK and basically accepted very few of the 2015 refugees/migrants.

Anyway right-wing Populist parties have risen basically everywhere in Europe, even places that received comparatively far less refugees (look at the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Finland). The immigration issue is there even without the refugees. In fact, the main Turning Point on Refugee sentiment in Germany, the Köln sex attacks (and for that matter the Paris Terrorist Attacks), were mostly not even committed by refugees, but rather north africans who had been there for quite a while already. The AFD was inevitable, perhaps 2-3% less than now, but still inevitable in my opinion.

Agree. The latter also has led to a sense of "the state having lost control" after we already went through the recession in 2009 and the Eurocrisis, especially with Greece. A lot of people have a feeling the government has lost control over events that create a lot of problems. Among many other things.

[Pick Up the Phone]

The CDU's shift to the left over the last decade has put them in a horrible strategic position and I don't think there's any solution to that.

Why? I really don't get this argument. Sure, one can lament that the CDU has lost some voters during this period (but, again, this is largely the result of a generally more fragmented party system and more Wechselwähler). Yet the SPD has lost many more and the weakness of the Social Democrats, in conjunction with the rise of the AfD, makes it almost impossible that either Red-Red-Green or a Traffic Light coalition get a Bundestag majority on their own. This means that the chances of a government formation without the CDU are close to zero; from a strategic perspective, the party is nowadays in a far better position than it was twenty years ago, when even close to 40% didn't prevent it from ending up on the opposition benches.

Over the next four years her shift to the left continued (getting rid of the Wehrpflicht, phasing out of nuclear energy and saving the Euro, while again not delivering on tax cuts).

Nothing of that was a real shift to the left. While abolishing conscription was something that should have been done years ago, it was not really Merkel’s call but rather initiated by everybody’s darling at this time, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (who the CDU couldn’t praise highly enough). Phasing out the use of nuclear energy has been an essential part of the government's agenda since the early Schröder years and was never in question; Merkel only accelerated the process in the wake of Fukushima. And 90% of 'saving the Euro’ was crisis management without any original policy component. Chancellor Merz, Chancellor Stoiber, and Chancellor Seehofer would have done exactly the same.

In her third term, Merkel moved the party further to the left than ever before, not only due to the refugee situation, but also because of leftist economic policies.

Since when is applied humanitarianism a move to the left? Merkel didn’t have much of a choice in 2015 and her later asylum policies (especially the Asylpakete) are certainly not leftist, but rather the most restrictive ones in decades. 

As of today, many conservative CDU-voters have already left the party, some of them for good. Many of those who vote for the CDU are moderate swing-voters, who might vote for the Greens the next time. The electorate in general, but also long-time CDU voters and members have followed Merkel’s lead to the left. Merkel managed to open the CDU in all directions – which is good as long as the voters come your way.

Exactly (although I wouldn’t call people that vote for fascists like Höcke conservative anymore). And this makes it even more important for the CDU to stick to centrism, otherwise the party is doomed. They will never win as many voters (for demographic reasons alone) in dying villages in Brandenburg and Saxony-Anhalt as they’re about to lose in the suburbs of Munich, Frankfurt, and Stuttgart, or in medium-sized cities like Münster, Wiesbaden, Potsdam, and Hannover (think of the mayoral election there last week - the candidate of the GRÜNEN was in first place). The CDU already has major difficulties to convince educated and urban population segments; a move to the right would worsen this situation even further.

[Pick Up the Phone]

I often wonder what would have happened to the CDU had Merkel been like the Cameron/May government in the UK and basically accepted very few of the 2015 refugees/migrants.

Anyway right-wing Populist parties have risen basically everywhere in Europe, even places that received comparatively far less refugees (look at the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Finland). The immigration issue is there even without the refugees.

This is basically the important point. The rise of populism and xenophobia has nothing to do with the numbers of refugees or immigrants but rather with public perception and effective agenda setting. And, indeed, there is fortunately a constitutional right that allows refugees to apply for asylum, so the government's position should not matter too much in this regard.

One more thing: the above exchange is really bizzare if you think about it. The Green supporter defending a "conservative" chancellor, while the conservatives/right-wingers are attacking her. Its normal though in the strange world of politics that is Germany. Merkel and many of her policies are by many accounts actually more popular among the Greens then amongst her own people. Goes the question whether she can even be described as "conservative" or "centre-right" anymore.

Don't get me wrong. Personally, I would welcome an openly right-wing post-Merkel CDU as this might pave the way for a Green Chancellor in 2021/2025. And in the best case even for a Baden-Württemberg scenario at the federal level. As I said before, I've never voted for Merkel and her migration and asylum policies are way too much to the right to even consider her. I just think that abandoning her legacy would be an incredibly stupid move from the CDU’s perspective.

By the way: As far as I know, Merkel has never claimed to be a conservative, few top CDU politicians in the post-Kohl era did. I've never understood this obsession that the CDU has to be a „conservative“ party when its self-description for more than a decade is to be the party of the center („Die Mitte“). Obviously, many parties claim to be in the center and most CDU policies are center-right, but the party is still Christian Democrat and not conservative. And so is Merkel.

[Beezer]

Where do you see a “lack of a conservative agenda”? Is it just because Merkel, over the course of almost 14 years, got rid of some (mostly symbolic and anachronistic) elements of the Kohl-CDU? Was it really a mistake to give in on same-sex marriage (an issue which 75-80% of the population support), to abolish conscription (something that almost all European countries did years ago), or to finally abandon nuclear energy (which many people also supported in the wake of the Fukushima incident)? The strange thing about this argument is that most of these political manoeuvers took place many years ago (e.g. Energiewende: 2010+; Conscription: 2011), but Merkel nonetheless got an excellent result in 2013. Since then, her government has in many areas even become more conservative (just look at the most recent legislation on asylum policy) but to no avail. Of course, this is fundamentally a matter of perspective.

It is a matter of perspective indeed. Keeping the borders open and allowing people w/o any documentation to come into the country was not a conservative move (nor was it sensible from a security perspective which used to be an area where the conservatives claimed issue ownership as well). Her supposed shift to the right on asylum policy is also not evident to me. Deporting people whose asylum claims have been rejected is not an exclusively conservative position. Besides, it's not as if the government is actually cracking down on asylum tourism and fraud.

The point about nuclear energy is this: Merkel was in favor of it before making a horrible U-turn on the basis of an earthquake on the other side of the world. As a result, Germany's CO2 goals have not been met. That's not leadership. That's typical Merkel behavior of listening to pollsters who present her with solutions that have a shelf life of a couple of months. After Fukushima Merkel could have acted like a leader and made the case that nuclear energy is still safe and clean (as illustrated by our neighbor France's decision to expand its use of it). Why is no one copying Germany's Energiewende? Because it's turned out to be a disaster in terms of CO2 emissions and costs for the average consumer and businesses. On energy and the environment, Merkel's one and a half decades in office have been a giant waste of time.

Looking at her broader track record, I once again ask the question: Can anyone cite a single piece of legislation over the past 14 years where one might say that this was a stated CDU goal which was enacted by the Merkel government(s)? I mean FFS, the CDU used to be the party of small government, but even during a period of decent economic growth, the issue of taxes hasn't been touched at all by her. Merkel has governed like a red-green chancellor.

As far as I know, there is no empirical proof that center-right parties benefit from becoming ‘more conservative’. Rather the contrary seems to be the case – at least when it comes to electoral results in Western and Northern Europe (Kriesi et al. are currently working on this).

Most people want clear alternatives. I understand that catch-all parties can no longer provide these. Still, Merkel has created a party which stands for...exactly what? There is no defining feature of the CDU anymore. Which is why I think it needs to present a sensible, more conservative image. Nobody gives a crap about gay marriage anymore. But it is possible to run campaigns on the CDU's immigration platform from 15 years ago which had a far less benevolent interpretation of multiculturalism. Plenty of data does illustrate that on the issue of immigration, there is a fair bit of potential to present a more restrictive image with great electoral potential. Once you scratch the surface, you see that west Europeans as well are hardly enthusiastic about more immigration from significantly poorer parts of the globe. 

I don't buy the argument that the average German supports the Green position on immigration and asylum and therefore the CDU has no choice but to parrot Habeck on the topic. I actually wholeheartedly agree with Ann Coulter on this topic: If center-right actors present a tough line on immigration, they win. Why did the CDU have its worst result since 1949 in 2017? Largely because of Merkel's handling of the migrant crisis in 2015 and her refusal to acknowledge that mistakes had been made.

All of this brings us back to the main point: What is a party's objective? Is it to come in first with 25% of the vote and officially hold the office of head of government (w/o leaving a mark) or is it the implementation of certain policies? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but as a voter I would prefer the latter. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

I wasn't exactly surprised about the rise of the AfD either. Many people who vote AfD today already existed 20 years ago and they already held similar views back then. They only had no political party they could vote for at the time (except for the short-lived Schill party in the early 2000s and maybe NPD and DVU although the latter ones were probably too extreme for most people).

Anecdote:

It was almost 11 years ago that I was an intern at Cem Özdemir's office, at the time still a newly elected federal party chairman. Back then, we had to deal with the case of a Green Party donor - if I recall correctly the owner of an organic honey farming business somewhere in East Germany - who was about to quit giving his money to the Greens because he was afraid that newly elected Cem Özdemir wanted to introduce Sharia law to Germany. Now, if you have friggin Green Party supporters who were convinced that friggin Cem Özdemir is some kind of radical Salafist you can imagine how very, very easy it is for the AfD to win any votes.

That being said, I think the root problem here are people who are overwhelmed with an information overkill and are unable to correctly process that information and put them into the right perspective. I'm sure if you go look for it, you'll find hundreds of sites, blogs and Facebook groups about Salafists and Sharia law on the Internet, many of them certainly with lurid headlines and at least a portion of fearmongering. To correctly process this flood of information (and misinformation) in way that you don't jump to the conclusion that Cem Özdemir will soon become a suicide bomber himself is a task which apparently puts a lot people in a position where they are simply in over their head.

This was my diatribe against Facebook and social media for today btw. The very same phenomenon could also be observed during the aforementioned global financial crisis of 2008 and European debt crisis of the early 2010s, of course. Although recently I seemed to observe a noticable shift from a "the refugess are gonna rape our women" narrative to a "climate protection policies are gonna destroy our economy and take away all our cars" narrative to the point that even strong AfD supporters start to see immigration as something of a - at best - secondary issue. This new social media narrative re-uses some of the earlier financial/debt crisis tropes though. Once again we're about to lose all our wealth and are threatened with a decline to the status of a Third-world country.

Jack Dorsey's recent announcement to ban all political ads from Twitter was at least a bit of a gleam of hope here, although it was also a bit of a PR stunt.

[Pick Up the Phone]

I wasn't exactly surprised about the rise of the AfD either. Many people who vote AfD today already existed 20 years ago and they already held similar views back then. They only had no political party they could vote for at the time (except for the short-lived Schill party in the early 2000s and maybe NPD and DVU although the latter ones were probably too extreme for most people).

Agree. Around 15% of the German population support far-right positions and/or have a respective worldview. While this number hasn't significantly changed over the last 20 years (one just have to read Wilhelm Heitmeyer and his Deutsche Zustände), the AfD was the first party that offered a platform neonazis (the NPD did basically lose its entire electorate), occasional racists, and middle-class reactionaries could all subscribe to. It's deplorable but the success of a far-right party was probably just a matter of time.

That being said, I think the root problem here are people who are overwhelmed with an information overkill and are unable to correctly process that information and put them into the right perspective. I'm sure if you go look for it, you'll find hundreds of sites, blogs and Facebook groups about Salafists and Sharia law on the Internet, many of them certainly with lurid headlines and at least a portion of fearmongering. To correctly process this flood of information (and misinformation) in way that you don't jump to the conclusion that Cem Özdemir will soon become a suicide bomber himself is a task which apparently puts a lot people in a position where they are simply in over their head.

This was my diatribe against Facebook and social media for today btw. The very same phenomenon could also be observed during the aforementioned global financial crisis of 2008 and European debt crisis of the early 2010s, of course. Although recently I seemed to observe a noticable shift from a "the refugess are gonna rape our women" narrative to a "climate protection policies are gonna destroy our economy and take away all our cars" narrative to the point that even strong AfD supporters start to see immigration as something of a - at best - secondary issue. This new social media narrative re-uses some of the earlier financial/debt crisis tropes though. Once again we're about to lose all our wealth and are threatened with a decline to the status of a Third-world country.

Nice anecdote, can only second it. Just coming out of high school (2013), I interned for an MP and had to deal with similarly 'concerned' voters who also spent way too much time watching YouTube videos about an alleged Islamic effort to subjugate Europe. Sharia law (they had as much an idea of Islamic jurisprudence as I have of quantum mechanics) was often their main concern and there was nothing one could say or do to calm them down. Their point of view was rather clear from the beginning: Christian Wulff (the former President of Germany who had to step down in 2012), the GRÜNEN, the SPD, and the LINKE were all controlled by Muslims, directed by Muslims, financed by Muslims, and solely focused on implementing theocratic rule in Germany. It was not so much the apparent lack of education and knowledge that shocked me back then, but rather this incredible unwillingness to separate facts from fiction. I can imagine that the rise of the AfD had an almost salvific dimension in this respect. For the first time, these people had found a 'serious' political party that willingly engaged with their conspiracy nonsense 24/7.

It is also true that the focus has shifted a bit in recent months (mirroring the general trend of climate change replacing migration as the most salient political issue), but I'm not sure if the intensity is really the same. As you've pointed out, this We're going to lose our wealth and become a third world country is basically some kind of default narrative and, in my opinion, lacks the apocalyptic element of the idea that millions of hyperaggressive Muslims are scheming in the dark and preparing for the abolition of democracy. I rather think that both topics are increasingly aligned: The government doesn't protect our women but wants to protect the rainforest. It doesn't focus on the really important things (deportations) but only on some figments of imagination (climate change). It doesn't make life easier for the autochthonous population but rather harder by taxing emissions etc.

[Pick Up the Phone]

Today, we got a poll from Germany's most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia. Devastating numbers for the SPD which would lose the second spot in its former heartland to the GRÜNEN.

CDU: 31.0% (-2.0)
SPD: 20.0% (-11.2)
GRÜNE: 21.0% (+14.6)
FDP: 10.0% (-2.6)
LINKE: 5.0% (+0.1)
AfD: 10.0% (+2.6)
Others: 4.0% (-0.7)

(Changes from the 2017 state election in brackets)

[CumbrianLefty]

Jesus, that is hellish for the SPD.

[Pick Up the Phone]

New drama in Thuringia: Mohring's deputy in the CDU parliamentary group, Michael Heym, has spoken out in favor of a CDU-AfD-FDP coalition (the FDP is strictly opposed to that but who cares). The reactions from his party were quite telling...

Thomas Röwekamp (Leader of the parliamentary group in Bremen): "I expect that the CDU in Thuringia expels this person from the party. Any cooperation with the fascists of the AfD is strictly against our party decisions. (...) It is anti-democratic and a betrayal of our values."

Marco Wanderwitz (Deputy Minister of the Interior): "People like Mr. Heym have no business in the CDU. We are Christian Democrats and dissociate ourselves from the radicals on the left and on the right."

Serap Güler (Member of the National board of the CDU): "To think about a coalition with Höcke - this is something I consider an attack against myself and my history in this country. It is also an insult for millions of former Gastarbeiter (guest workers) and their families."

Even AKK's office had to intervene, making clear that there won't be any coalition with the AfD. So the chances for such an alliance have now probably decreased from 1% to 0%.

[Pick Up the Phone]

According to Die WELT, the FDP will most likely pass the threshold by 40+ votes. Final results expected by Thursday. Would mean that Mohring might insist a bit longer on a CDU-SPD-GRÜNE-FDP minority government under his leadership.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Getting the impression that the relationship between Mike Mohring and his deputy Michael Heym is not a very good one, both professionally and personally.

The (i)morality of cooperating with the most extreme of all the AfD state chapters aside, I'm also unsure what Heym is attempting to achieve here exactly. Topple his own state chairman, defy the leadership the CDU federal party, successfully make it through possible expulsion procedures against him, and get elected minister-president of a "rogue" CDU minority government with the help of Höcke? Seems.... ambitious.

[Middle-aged Europe]

CDU secretary-general Paul Ziemiak - someone who was originally appointed by AKK in an effort to appease the conservative Merz/Spahn supporters in the party - has essentially reprimanded the Michael Heym faction of the Thuringian CDU for wanting to cooperate with Björn Höcke.

According to Ziemiak, the calls for holding talks with the AfD are - quote - "nuts". In addition he said that any form of cooperation with the AfD is "not acceptable" and whose who see that differently should ask themselves if they belong to the right party.

Josef Schuster, the President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, has also weighed in on this one and has called the demands of the Heym faction "irresponsible".


I suppose the government formation is essentially put on hold now, because the Thuringian CDU is in a process of disintegration over their positioning towards the AfD.

[Pick Up the Phone]

I strongly suspect that Ziemiak acts as a mouthpiece for AKK. She doesn't want to position herself too aggressively on Thuringia because that's a battle she cannot win: Obviously, she's also against any sort of cooperation; but if she puts too much emphasis on this, the conservative wing will feel betrayed, question her authority ("She's still Merkel's puppet blah blah") and assume that this implies a tacit approval of the other option (CDU-LINKE). AKK's best strategy for now is to use 'conservative' guys like Ziemiak to convey her message and let Mohring take care of the chaos within the state party.

Heym is definitely an idiot but he has successfully created the impression that there's a faction behind him when, in fact, he's more or less alone. For example, he managed to get an open letter released in which 17 "Thuringian politicians" express their solidarity and demand from the party leadership to not rule out cooperations with the AfD below the level of a formal coalition. These politicians, however, include only a single state level legislator. All the others are chairmen or vice-chairmen of some random district chapters or members of the board of the local Junge Union (the youth wing of the CDU)... not exactly the kind of supporters you need to scare off your critics in Erfurt and Berlin.

[Pick Up the Phone]

According to Ziemiak, the calls for holding talks with the AfD are - quote - "nuts". In addition he said that any form of cooperation with the AfD is "not acceptable" and whose who see that differently should ask themselves if they belong to the right party.

Mohring has countered Ziemiak's statement now, said that "nobody is nuts", and made an emotional case for party unity. His own parliamentary group saw things a bit differently, however, and re-elected him as their group leader with a very meagre result of 66% (14 of 21 MPs). Ouch! I almost feel bad for this guy. Everybody seems to hate him these days.