“I am very sceptical about this,” Dobrindt told broadcaster ZDF on Sunday after talk of a possible ban dominated German media since Friday. “I don’t believe that we can just ban the AfD. Instead we need to outgovern them.”
“In truth, this plays into the hands of the AfD and their narrative that people no longer want to engage with them politically, but only legally. And I would not want to grant the AfD that satisfaction,” Dobrindt said.
I hold Hanlon’s razor to be one of the most important tools of making sense of the world. But I simply don’t understand these Dobrindt quotes. They seem to be missing like 10 paragraphs of explanation or context. I’d truly like to at least make sense of them before I dismiss them. What does “outgovern” mean? What’s so bad about not engaging with the AfD politically?
The AfD isn’t only here since yesterday. They have grown (read:festered) over the last 10 years of stagnant, conservative politics. The “middle” parties SPD and CDU have, instead of creating a clear separation, become closer and closer to the AfD and taken up their talking points. Mainly, but not only regarding migration politics as well as social security.
They had 10 (well, maybe 8) years to outgovern the AfD, stabilise and strengthen democracy and remove the basis for the social Angst that leads to hate of migrants. They have failed at that and still cling to the same narrative. And they are still making it worse and “outgoverning” the AfD is in this case, just taking over their “solutions”.
Edit: I totally forgot the racism. Germany is institutionally racist, but noone wants to talk about it, it’s a non-issue in the minds of many. So there is nothing to rectify. If you don’t ask PoC.
It’s always the same story… Essentially those people say that all you need to do is govern better than them. Which is a stupid take because for that to work, they’d have to be in power first - vs you don’t want fascists to get power just to prove your point of them not doing it well. You’re not going to get that power back.
What’s so bad about not engaging with the AfD politically?
One thing doesn’t have anything to do with the other. There are laws in Germany that make it very clear where you’re allowed to be on the political spectrum. If you’re outside of that range, your party is supposed to be dissolved, end of story. Imho, they are way beyond what is allowed, so the constitutional court should decide if they should be allowed to keep working. It’s just not a political question, it’s a legal question. So it should be answered in courts, not in the parliament.
On another note, I even think that engaging with them politically won’t lead anywhere except more publicity for them. And that’s not because they’re so good at debating but because they’re always acting in bad faith. Their goal isn’t to fix the system but to destroy it, so every time you give them airtime they’ll use that to lure more frustrated people into their hands, just to start using the channels the party owns to get more information, opening themselves up misinformation and lies. It’s not an accident that that party uses social media and their own channels to spread their point of view while ignoring or oppressing established media wherever they can. This whole premise turns engagement with them into an argument you can’t win, though. If you’re defending any part of this system, you’re their enemy and they won’t use a debate to engage with you but simply to use you as a means to communicate their own goal of tearing it all down. They are not interested in compromise, so unless you agree with their idea of destroying this system as we know it, there’s no good outcome in any engagement with them.
God, I missed your “not”… I fucking wrote that on mobile. 😞
Outgoverning them means nothing at all. It’s an empty phrase that sounds good, many people would instinctively agree to, but no two of them interpret it the same way.
Of course they could have outgoverned AfD. They had 10 years for that. People are frustrated because they see their situation only getting worse with every year, and that’s the soil fascism needs to grow. So the way to work against them is to implement policies that help people, not billionaires and corporations. Lower taxes for the lower classes, tax the rich, build affordable housing and invest in public transit. Keep cartels from price gouging on groceries.
But these are not the policies Dobrindt has in mind.
when he says “outgovern AfD”. And that’s why conservatives will never be able to lower fascist vote counts by “outgoverning them”.
A fun bit that I learned yesterday: In 2012, Dobrindt actually advocated outlawing Die Linke as a party. It’s so weird how the strategy shifts in the face of actual fascists trying to take over compared to there being a leftist democratic party that is not actually doing all that well.
Further limit infrastructure spending because limiting state debt must surely be the number one topic for everyone by a wide margin and everyone must want to see it achieved at all costs.
Take a harder stance on immigrants, asylum seekers, and other foreign-looking people because adopting AfD policies must surely lead to their voters bleeding over.
Keep talking about how the intended means of defending the country against extremist parties are not valid means of defending the country against extremist parties.
Continue fully collaborating on the regional level.
I hold Hanlon’s razor to be one of the most important tools of making sense of the world. But I simply don’t understand these Dobrindt quotes. They seem to be missing like 10 paragraphs of explanation or context. I’d truly like to at least make sense of them before I dismiss them. What does “outgovern” mean? What’s so bad about not engaging with the AfD politically?
The AfD isn’t only here since yesterday. They have grown (read:festered) over the last 10 years of stagnant, conservative politics. The “middle” parties SPD and CDU have, instead of creating a clear separation, become closer and closer to the AfD and taken up their talking points. Mainly, but not only regarding migration politics as well as social security.
They had 10 (well, maybe 8) years to outgovern the AfD, stabilise and strengthen democracy and remove the basis for the social Angst that leads to hate of migrants. They have failed at that and still cling to the same narrative. And they are still making it worse and “outgoverning” the AfD is in this case, just taking over their “solutions”.
Edit: I totally forgot the racism. Germany is institutionally racist, but noone wants to talk about it, it’s a non-issue in the minds of many. So there is nothing to rectify. If you don’t ask PoC.
It’s always the same story… Essentially those people say that all you need to do is govern better than them. Which is a stupid take because for that to work, they’d have to be in power first - vs you don’t want fascists to get power just to prove your point of them not doing it well. You’re not going to get that power back.
One thing doesn’t have anything to do with the other. There are laws in Germany that make it very clear where you’re allowed to be on the political spectrum. If you’re outside of that range, your party is supposed to be dissolved, end of story. Imho, they are way beyond what is allowed, so the constitutional court should decide if they should be allowed to keep working. It’s just not a political question, it’s a legal question. So it should be answered in courts, not in the parliament.On another note, I even think that engaging with them politically won’t lead anywhere except more publicity for them. And that’s not because they’re so good at debating but because they’re always acting in bad faith. Their goal isn’t to fix the system but to destroy it, so every time you give them airtime they’ll use that to lure more frustrated people into their hands, just to start using the channels the party owns to get more information, opening themselves up misinformation and lies. It’s not an accident that that party uses social media and their own channels to spread their point of view while ignoring or oppressing established media wherever they can. This whole premise turns engagement with them into an argument you can’t win, though. If you’re defending any part of this system, you’re their enemy and they won’t use a debate to engage with you but simply to use you as a means to communicate their own goal of tearing it all down. They are not interested in compromise, so unless you agree with their idea of destroying this system as we know it, there’s no good outcome in any engagement with them.God, I missed your “not”… I fucking wrote that on mobile. 😞
Outgoverning them means nothing at all. It’s an empty phrase that sounds good, many people would instinctively agree to, but no two of them interpret it the same way.
Of course they could have outgoverned AfD. They had 10 years for that. People are frustrated because they see their situation only getting worse with every year, and that’s the soil fascism needs to grow. So the way to work against them is to implement policies that help people, not billionaires and corporations. Lower taxes for the lower classes, tax the rich, build affordable housing and invest in public transit. Keep cartels from price gouging on groceries.
But these are not the policies Dobrindt has in mind. when he says “outgovern AfD”. And that’s why conservatives will never be able to lower fascist vote counts by “outgoverning them”.
A fun bit that I learned yesterday: In 2012, Dobrindt actually advocated outlawing Die Linke as a party. It’s so weird how the strategy shifts in the face of actual fascists trying to take over compared to there being a leftist democratic party that is not actually doing all that well.
That’s different. Die Linke might reduce his friends’ profits.
The CxU’s idea of “outgoverning” the AfD:
The same thing the established parties wanted to do with Hitler when they made him Chancellor in 1933.