Relevant context: Dobrindt was in favour of banning the Left party and was in favour of juristically going after the Last Generation.
Thanks to AFD and ALL other extreme right wing parties in european countries, our hard-earned freedom will be gone in the future, thanks a lot douchebags 🖕 and instead of working on things that actually matter we have to worry about extremist parties … Thanks for ruining our precious time, money, energy and freedom douchebags 🖕🖕
They’ll want to form a coalition with the Nazis in 2029, just like last time, so obviously they don’t want to ban them. Fucking “conservatives”.
Genuine question: what/who do you base that assumption on?
So far, those most thinking about such a coalition seem to be those that aren’t in the Union.
Merz hat gone from “firewall” over “ah, let’s not fuss over state level cooperation” to literally inviting them to help him win a vote against the old federal government in a time span of less than 4 years. CDU/CSU representatives didn’t abandon him over this, so I have to assume they are ok with it.
Spahn (new conservative faction leader, one of the most powerful positions in the next parliament) publicly calls to treat them like any other opposition party (that would logically include being open to a coalition).
Many other prominent conservative figures are actively working to adopt and normalize AfD positions in their policies, which is how the public gets prepared to be more open to the idea.
You have to actively want to not see it to be able to ignore the writing on the wall. They absolutely will do it as soon as it appears beneficial to them.
And don’t forget that CDU/CSU both have deep ties to the Republicans and they to this day have those connections
Merz is power-hungry and wanted to become chancellor pretty bad. Also, I’d agree that there is too much spinelessness in the party when push comes to shove (but also in the SPD, as can be seen in the ‘cautious’ comments concerning a ban of the AfD).
Yet, I don’t really see them wanting to form a coalition with the Nazis in 2029 and concerning Merz, it is one of the very few things I actually believe him that he personally won’t form a coalition with the AfD. They also don’t want to burn themselves in a failed attempt to ban the party, or, in the Unions case, don’t want backlash from the voters they want to attract back from the AfD. But I honestly wouldn’t say they are keen to cooperate with the AfD, especially as long as it is possible to achieve their goals with a partner as malleable as the SPD. The reasons of them not wanting to ban the party are primarily fears of accountability and backlash, not strategic ones.
But I honestly wouldn’t say they are keen to cooperate with the AfD, especially as long as it is possible to achieve their goals with a partner as malleable as the SPD.
That’s the key condition. As soon as other partners aren’t willing to give them what they want, they will not hesitate. They have literally just shown us that they won’t. Those votes were a power play by Merz to signal to the SPD they shouldn’t be too confident in their position as the only possible partner. That only makes sense if he’s willing to go through with it.
Of course they are telling the public now that they won’t do it. About three years ago Merz told us anybody who cooperated with the Nazis in the slightest would be excluded from the party the next day. I may have missed all the exclusions, but actually I think you cannot trust one word this man says.
Also it’s not even a sure thing that Merz will be in charge for the next election. The “first row” in the CDU took a big step back when it came to posts in the new government, possibly because they are gambling it won’t make it for the full 4 years. And if it doesn’t, it’ll be Spahn or one of the other extremists next.
Last time the Nazis came into power the conservatives acted in the same way and they will do it again. It’s a property of conservatism, not of the individual actors. You can see that in other nations, the USA are only the most recent example. Conservatives will help anybody to power as long as it means they can avoid taxing the rich.
That’s the key condition. As soon as other partners aren’t willing to give them what they want, they will not hesitate.
But wouldn’t that make the AfD their second best option at best? The way you state it makes it seem as though they are actually poised to form a coalition with them, i.e. actually go for them as their prime partner in a coalition. I’d say they’d always try to form a coalition first with red, green and/or yellow.
Also, as stated, I don’t see any hard-bitten aspirations to form a coalition with them later as the key driver in their reluctance to ban the AfD, but rather the fear of failure. Wouldn’t you agree?
Future coalition partners are not easily dismissed, eh?
Steigbügelhalter gotta Steigbügel halten!
AfD takes money from the Kremlin and they are not interested in "out governing"anyone, but this man in the actual government is eager to frame them as loyal opposition.
AfD was popularized by German media first. This is controlled opposition, created by the upper class. The Kremlin money and the racial politics were a poisoned gift because they will prevent them from ever gaining the absolute majority.
There is the threat of a new strong, successful party if the AfD is forbidden. Then a party without racist politics like Volt has space to grow.
The Kremlin money and the racial politics were a poisoned gift because they will prevent them from ever gaining the absolute majority.
Uhm what? I don’t see the ~40% Afd voters in my area give a hoot about Kremlin money and many are absolutely against all foreigners. And while many people in Western Germany would rather not see that, the reason that so many people still vote CxU despite everything is that they are copying Afd language on immigration.
This seems like a really bad take.
To the established parties, 40% is an acceptable risk if it prevents another new party from gaining 55% of the votes.
The really key thing about controlled opposition is the first bit. The control. It’s crucial to the entire concept, because without it you’ve got uncontrolled opposition.
If you raise a mean dog to scare people away, you really don’t want to let your neighbour start feeding it in secret… Especially if that neighbour has jumped the fence and kicked your arse before.
The analogy with the dog doesn’t work. The AfD is not there to protect anything.
Don’t be obtuse, it was made in reference to your comment about “controlled opposition”.
I understood that. But who cares about the neighbor feeding the dog if the dog is not there to protect?
Still obtuse.
Last thing I can say is that feeding the dog references the financing of the AfD by Russia. Please tell me, how is this a problem if the AfD is not part of the government?
“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?
What does “outgovern” mean?
The same thing the established parties wanted to do with Hitler when they made him Chancellor in 1933.
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.
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:
- 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.
What does “outgovern” mean?
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. 😞
