site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28960 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

New week, so new cultural war post- this time for Germany. As you may have seen in your morning news feeds, the German far right wins first major election since WW2 on last Sunday.

Or rather, the German AfD won a plurality of votes in the German state of Thuringia, came very close to doing so in Saxony, and did very well in the formerly communist East Germany. While they did not win a majority in any state, this wouldn't be expected in a more parliamentary-style system either, and by coming up to nearly 1/3rd of the votes it represents the further normalization of the German- and by extension European- far right. While I'll be the first to say I find the labeling of the European right as 'far right' more indicative of European peculiarities and attempts to stigmatize political opponents than objective, it certainly is an increase in anti-Establishment sentiment expressed by parties with views counter to the European political elite consensus. Notably, and in a change from 2019 elections, the 2024 election also saw the rise of the far(ther)-left BSW party, whose rise took votes from established-left parties. While BSW is of the 'refuse to cooperate with AfD' direction, they are also notable for stated opposition to supporting Ukraine with more military aid, though how hard they hold that view / what they might trade it away for in coalition-negotiation remains to be seen.

Politically, this complicates the coalition-formation capacity of the remaining German parties, which have seen efforts at maintaining a non-cooperation cordon of 'any coalition but one with AfD' crack over time. It also raises the typical post-election question of 'what topic of discontent matters most'- as there are your typical breadbasket issues of economics and cost of living, and especially immigration. AfD/BSW appear to be where the anti-Ukraine support politics go as well, though how central that is to the party voters will be subject to the normal democratic post-election shift analysis, which everyone will try to boost their favored topic and diminish others. These are all the more relevant as this leads to the German federal elections next year, which matters due to the fragility of the current government coalition, whose coalition has kept the AfD out of what would be a normal government involvement for cycles now.

Culture implications here are many, from the continued normalization of the European right, to the rise of East Germany as a political spoiler in politics that have been dominated by the western-German political center since unification, to the role of immigration as a 'we're willing to ignore the party stigma for the sake of this issue' issue.

There are also the geopolitical implications, such as how the German election results may shape the Ukraine War. The early take might be that the election foreshadows the decreased chance of future German military aid to Ukraine, but that in turn could drive the current government to 'lock in' support mechanisms in a way a government with less flexibility couldn't pass/reverse, as well as the incentives this public potential struggle could have on actors in peace negotiations to consider whether they are more likely to get a better position after the next Federal election (and thus less reason to make/signal concessions before then).

Overall, interesting if not surprising times.

While BSW is of the 'refuse to cooperate with AfD' direction, they are also notable for stated opposition to supporting Ukraine with more military aid, though how hard they hold that view / what they might trade it away for in coalition-negotiation remains to be seen.

I have no special insight into German politics, but in Slovakia this pro-Russian and pro-Putin moniker was attached to the current prime minister Robert Fico before elections. Interestingly enough, one of the the first things he did post-election was a conference with Ukrainian prime minister Denys Šmyhaľ in the city of Uzhhorod, where he signed the treaty of military cooperation with Ukraine, expressed his support for Ukrainian EU integration as well as support for EU military package. The rhetoric from anti-Fico coalition then changed that he betrayed his voters and that he only wants to make money for his cronies who will provide the military assistance.

It is incredibly difficult to navigate this situation, I am just used to media lying and speaking from the both sides of their mouth. It is just sad state of things.

Slovak media are very lame. It's a small country, little talent. No money in media, so only lame people or partisans will do it. I haven't watched TV in decades but the overall level of newspapers is now abysmal, and Ukraine derangement syndrome and war mania made it even worse. Merely overhearing DennikN (probably the best general newspaper) podcasts while visiting my mother makes me cringe.

Fico is likely a psychopath so he's going to 'do the needful' and be as flexible as is required. No idea why he'd sign this, but it's either blackmail or greed. He is believed to have a very finite life expectancy due to heart issues and expected to die within a few years unless he gets a heart transplant, but he's drinking heavily and not a good candidate for one. This I overheard from family who are doctors in the capital.

It's not only Slovak media. Once you are marked as pro-Putin, the whole media complex parrots this endlessly even in the face of contrary evidence, I think there is some media incest in this manner. Examples regarding Fico from Reuters or Guardian or even Die Welt.

They are all lame, that is why if media say that AFD party is Pro-Russian, then it really is tough to know what to think about it, they just cannot report about these issues honestly. It really is terrible, because people do not have time to delve into these issues deeply and maybe they really are Pro-Russia. It is hard to tell.

True. I didn't mean to imply other media are good.

It's all so horribly lame at times I almost feel compelled to start translating some of the clever stuff I read into Czech. Not sure where one could post it where it wouldn't be entirely pointless.

The cordon sanitaire in Germany means they have a two-party system -- AfD and everyone else. AfD needs an absolute majority to have any power at all.

While I'll be the first to say I find the labeling of the European right as 'far right' more indicative of European peculiarities and attempts to stigmatize political opponents than objective

I don't really agree with that. For the existence of the BRD, the disavowal of the Nazis has been universal in every party. "What Germans did then was uniquely bad, and we should be ashamed about that" was consensus outside of a few fringe parties like the NPD. Granted, in the beginning, the consensus was mostly "let us not talk about it", while after 1968, it shifted to a culture of remembrance. Feeling bad about German atrocities has been a core part of German identity since then, and I think we are better for it.

The AfD, especially in the person of Bjoern Hoecke, breaks this consensus. If I was a smaller country bordering Germany, I would get a bit concerned about a German leader waxing about the 'thousand years of glorious history' of Germany, given historic precedent in that period. I mean, nobody would expect a chancellor Hoecke to try to restore the borders of the Reich in 1914, but then few people suspected that Putin would be willing to start a war of annexation in Europe to restore Russia to the Tsarist glory days.

Hoecke is trying to walk as close to the line drawn by StGB § 86a (which outlaws "Sieg Heil" and the like) without crossing it (and then gets convicted for using the more obscure SA slogan "Alles fuer Deutschland). And where the other parties treat the swastika-tattooed mobs as toxic, the AfD is willing to tolerate them in their voelkisch wing.

Then there is that whole Remigrationskonferenz thing (called Wannsee 2.0 by some). What was said and by whom is contested, but there are credible claims that some called for deporting German citizens if they had the wrong ethnicity, which would be completely beyond the pale. I mean, restricting political asylum is one thing (and unless you have a 2/3 majority, expect the German supreme court to have an opinion on that, because that right is in the constitution), but this is something different. Sending people with US passports back to the birth country of their ancestors is way out the overton window for US politics, and it is similar for Germany.

So no, I don't think that calling the AfD (especially in Thuringia, where Hoecke is the leader) extreme right is wrong.

--

Regarding the outcome of the elections, I think this puts the parties in the middle of the spectrum in a bit of a bind. I mean, they can form very large coalitions. Looking at the distribution of seats in Thuringia, if you want a majority without the AfD, you would require some delegates from every other party (except for the SPD) to at least tolerate your government. Given that BSW was formed in a messy breakway from the Linke ('the left'), this seems like a tall order. For Saxony, the situation looks a bit less dire because the conservative CDU did very well. Still, you are stuck with either CDU+Linke+SPD+Greens, or three-partner coalition with CDU+BSW+any, neither of which sound very stable. And four years from now, whoever was formed that coalition is likely going to get punished for it, unless the East Germans are actually satisfied with both state level and federal administrations (fat chance, that).

On the other hand, anyone who had campaigned on not forming a coalition with the AfD (which I gather are basically all of the parties) actually forming a government with them would be a blatant betrayal of the voters trust. In Germany, we have the concept of "Steigbuegelhalter" (literally stirrup holder), which generally refers to the parties which formed a coalition with the NSDAP in 1933 (and were eventually assimilated into it for their troubles). Nobody wants to be that guy.

As an opponent to the AfD, I thus would have liked it better if Hoecke had won 51% in Thuringia, because then he would have to deliver, and show how pushing asylum seekers to other German states would solve the manifold social, demographic and economic problems of East Germany.

Then there is that whole Remigrationskonferenz thing (called Wannsee 2.0 by some). What was said and by whom is contested, but there are credible claims that some called for deporting German citizens if they had the wrong ethnicity, which would be completely beyond the pale. I mean, restricting political asylum is one thing (and unless you have a 2/3 majority, expect the German supreme court to have an opinion on that, because that right is in the constitution), but this is something different. Sending people with US passports back to the birth country of their ancestors is way out the overton window for US politics, and it is similar for Germany.

Sorry, but it's not just contested; it is simply not credible. We now know that Correctiv was purposefully suggesting the similarity, but never actually explicitly stated that there were these plans. In their recent court case they now did, in fact, claim the opposite: That the reason they didn't explicitly stated such is because there never were these plans. According to Correctiv itself, all participants agreed that this was beyond the pale. You can read more about this at the Cicero or the Übermedien. Both in german, obviously, but google translate exists.

As much as I'd like to hear from other parts of the world, this is why I'm ultimately skeptical of discussing Culture War in non-Anglo countries. Culture War commentary has to be an adversarial collaboration, with both sides being insanely plugged in, to get anywhere close to the truth. Otherwise the mainstream narrative will be able to run circles around anyone who questions it.

Well, at least we have enough of Ze Germans here that it worked out in the end...

I take offense to making fun of our pronunciation! The correct term is Kraut, as being named after the most supreme of foods is an honour.

But yes I agree, though I would extend this to almost any topic in any country. For an example close to heart, looking up first source english papers but blindly trusting their framing of their findings is almost as guaranteed to lead to misconceptions as blindly trusting MSM reporting on the findings.

Yeah the kraut (sauerkraut) is seriously undervalued in America. It's super tasty if done right, goes with almost any savory food, can be self-made easily and cheaply (which is good because if you can even find it in store it's usually subpar), keeps very well and is a pretty healthy food.

So, summarily I get this:

1. Hoecke doesn't apologize for the Nazis enough (or maybe at all?)
2. Hoecke mentions 'thousand years of glorious history' of Germany
3. He said "Alles fuer Deutschland" which turns out has been used by SA
4. Is tolerating swastika-tattooed mobs
5. Some (who?) in some conference called for deporting German citizens if they had the wrong ethnicity

Did I forget anything important?

I don't have much of a stake in German politics, but it would be important for me to understand whether or not AfD are Nazis or Nazis-in-building. I have a very low tolerance for Nazis, but also American politics taught me that about 99% of times when somebody calls somebody else a Nazi it's a lie. There's still 1% where it's true, about the Nazis which do exist, and some of them even wear swastikas (many others wear other outfits and signage) - but one has to be careful there.

So far, from the list 3 is a little worrying - did he know and used it on purpose, or is it like saying Trump is a Nazi because "Make America Great again" was once used 80+ years ago by some Nazi sympathizers? Hard to make a conclusion here. Is there a pattern of using such slogans and symbols, or is it one time thing? By itself, the slogan does not sound that heinous, but of course if he was attracted to it as a way to say "sieg hail" without saying "sieg hail" it'd be a problem.

4 is worrying if he's really leaning on these mobs and welcoming them and integrating them into his infrastructure on the ground. But is not worrying is it's just some jerks that happen to agree with him on something - I'm sure plenty of jerks agree with me on some things, not all jerks are obligated to be wrong about everything all the time. How important are those mobs for him?

5 would be very bad if it were his party position but the vagueness of the claim is kind of suspicious. Who said that? What exactly did they say? How important this person is in defining AfD policy? Do other AfD policymakers confirm this? Did they endorse or promote such actions? "Somebody maybe said something on a conference" is a great start of a cancel campaign, but poor evidence if you want to figure out what's actually going on. Is there more to it?

1 and 2 don't particularly bother me. Politicians can performatively apologize for anything, and 100% of those apologies mean absolutely nothing - they can apologize for a thing today and do the same thing tomorrow. And Germany does have a long and glorious history - at least no less glorious than any other place, and no less bloody and disgusting at the same time too. Nothing wrong in remembering that, it's what conclusions you make out if it and how it moves you to act is important. The moniker "far right" imply that it moves AfD to act like a Nazis or at least as far towards the Nazis as political limitations will allow. But is this true? So far I haven't seen a proper substantiation of that.

P.S. Oh, and the last point. Plenty of people said Putin would start a war. In fact, Russia has been conducting several wars pretty much since it's establishment in early 1990s - they occupied parts of Georgia, part of Moldova, intervened in Central Asian states and Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, there was pretty much no period where Russia was peaceful and isolationist, and Putin with his "tough guy" image never indicated he's going to be any different. And they actively meddled in Ukraine for all that time, too. Full-scale intervention was by no means an obvious outcome, but a lot of people raised it as a possibility - and get laughed at by a lot of other people. Many of the latter still among the decision makers in Europe and Germany, so not sure if their predictive capacities can be used to indicate anything.

I don't have much of a stake in German politics, but it would be important for me to understand whether or not AfD are Nazis or Nazis-in-building. I have a very low tolerance for Nazis, but also American politics taught me that about 99% of times when somebody calls somebody else a Nazi it's a lie. There's still 1% where it's true, about the Nazis which do exist, and some of them even wear swastikas (many others wear other outfits and signage) - but one has to be careful there.

This gets a little confusing when you're actually living in Germany. Actual current-day nazis are rare, but pretty much everyone there had a father or grandfather (or grandmother) who worked for them. Maybe not as card-carrying members of the party, but still swept up in the war effort somehow. It wasn't really a choice, the whole country did. So I can see how the endless performative guilt and apologies would get annoying, since it's basically calling out an entire generation of your family.

I mean, nobody would expect a chancellor Hoecke to try to restore the borders of the Reich in 1914, but then few people suspected that Putin would be willing to start a war of annexation in Europe to restore Russia to the Tsarist glory days.

I don’t think Putin would agree with this characterization.

He’s spoken of the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine and used this as partial justification: these borders were made up by the Soviets and didn’t matter at the time since Ukraine wasn’t independent in any real sense.

As far as I know he’s never said that he’s seeking to restore the borders of the Empire or of the USSR. Most charitably, people seem to infer this based on his starting a war and speaking of history. Less charitably it’s a deliberate distortion to make the bad man appear even more bad.

these borders were made up by the Soviets and didn’t matter

As opposed to other borders that were directly proclaimed by God in a holy revelation? Of course all borders are made up by humans who were in charge of making borders at that time, there's literally no other option. Concluding from that that they don't matter is just saying "I am the sole authority on declaring borders because I am the only person whose opinion matters".

Most charitably, people seem to infer this based on his starting a war and speaking of history

You're saying it as if deriving the intentions of the person from his convictions and his actions is somehow a dirty trick, while believing his words - a words of known and repeated liar - is the only way to know the truth. Of course the real situation is the opposite - it is very easy to lie when speaking directly about one's intentions. However, it's very hard to hide your true intentions consistently through all the pattern of your actions, your references, your interests, your convictions and your propaganda - even if you could do the job convincingly, that would just have the effect of hindering your true efforts, because you henchmen and your subjects would also think the opposite of your true intentions if you're so good. But usually the actual intention shines through well enough, and in Putin's case it definitely does. While literally recreating precisely the borders of the Russian Empire (which btw were never stable anyway) is not the goal, certainly recovering it's former glory is, and any territory that has been owned by it is considered as valid target (even if some currently inaccessible).

Less charitably it’s a deliberate distortion to make the bad man appear even more bad.

Or, on your side, to make the bad man less bad out of contrarianism. I understand it's tempting to think if the state propaganda says Putin is bad then it probably isn't that bad. The tragic fact is he's worse.

Many borders are accidents of history. If things had gone different, the Texas might still be Mexican, or some other Mexian state might also have joined the US. In feudal societies, it might be down to the order in which some nobles croaked and inheritance was passed along. Sometimes it was just some guy with a straight ruler who could just as well have drawn his line a few arc-minutes further north or south. Sometimes, little details end up being crucial. Hong Kong might have been leased for 50 or 150 years instead of 99. Sure, if the Soviets had organized Ukraine differently, then it might have stayed with Russia when the USSR collapsed. "But I have a reasonable historical claim to these lands" might have flown in 1200 CE, but it does not fly in 2020 any more.

I think Putin wants Russia to become a hegemonic power, as it was during both the Empire and the USSR. Unlike the USSR, he is not motivated by a communist political ideology, but by a blend of nationalism and conservative Christianity, which is why I compared him to the Tsars.

I have not claimed that he precisely wants the territories Russia or the USSR held at any point, but I think the claim that he strives for Russia to be a dominant local power, as it was in the Empire (or during much of the USSR) can be rather well supported. To phrase that as "to restore Russia to the Tsarist glory days" is putting it a bit polemically, perhaps like claiming of an aspiring bodybuilder "he wants to become the next Schwarzenegger".

As an opponent to the AfD, I thus would have liked it better if Hoecke had won 51% in Thuringia, because then he would have to deliver, and show how pushing asylum seekers to other German states would solve the manifold social, demographic and economic problems of East Germany.

If nothing else, wouldn't he at least have shiny new crime stats to show?

What I find rather telling is that two of the three federal ruling parties didn't even get enough votes to enter the Thuringian parliament.

Overall, interesting if not surprising times.

Nah, I'm on team "nothing ever happens". AfD could break through the cordon sanitaire, and they'd just end up as the next Meloni.

As an exercise, let’s taboo the term “far-right”. What exactly is “far-right” about AfD’s platform? Do they propose:

  1. More strictly vetting all new asylum claims
  2. Reviewing successful asylum claims from 2015 to the present day, and deporting those found to have made false statements
  3. Kicking down doors and summarily executing men, women, and children who are not of 100% Aryan stock

… or something else entirely?

One that really cracked me up that I saw in a few articles today was how they reminded everyone that the this is the first time a "far-right" party has won an election since ww2 and also it's on the 85th anniversary of Nazi Germany invading Poland.

They then go on to inform us of the unspeakable far right policies of this party which warrant being compared to a group that waged war across Europe.

brace yourselves, might want to sit down for how evil this one is.

They're anti-war!

We really don't hate journalists near as much as we should, we need to invent people that don't spend 8 hours sleeping so they can hate journalists 24 hours a day or something.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-skeptic-parties-win-big-162619480.html?guccounter=1

The continued rise of Alternative for Germany (AfD) entered a new chapter on Sept. 1, when the controversial far-right party came first in Thuringia's state election.

AfD won around 33% of the vote in Thuringia, a state of 2 million people in Germany's east. The results mark the first time a far-right party won a state election in Germany since the Second World War - 85 years to the day that Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

and their policy

"Anti-war, anti-Ukraine"

"In line with the rest of the AfD, Hocke has repeatedly urged for dialogue with Moscow and is against sending military aid to Ukraine"

"In May 2023, Chrupalla and party founder Alexander Gauland attended a reception at the Russian embassy, celebrating Russia's 'Victory Day.' Chrupalla claimed he attended the event because 'dialogue should not be allowed to break down in times of crisis.'"

"AfD's campaign in Thuringia included the slogan 'diplomacy instead of weapons,' referring to Germany's position as the world's second-largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the U.S."

"'Friends, we as Germans, we as Thuringians, we as voters say – no more war,' he said."

To be fair, they are less pacifist and more pro-Putin. I am sure that if someone invaded a part of Germany, they would sing a different tune.

I agree with you though that their objection to aid for Ukraine -- which they share with the new BSW -- is not something which is beyond the pale.

To me, this AP article takes the cake.

Headline: A far-right German party’s win has some fearing for the future. Others worry of a return to the past.

Synopsis: A lesbian couple in Berlin is worried about the rise of the AfD.

They’re concerned that a gay couple and their child might not be safe in the future if parties like Alternative for Germany, or AfD, gain more power in the formerly communist and less prosperous eastern states.

Germany’s domestic intelligence has deemed both the Saxon and Thuringian branches of the AfD to be “proven right-wing extremist” groups. The leader in Thuringia has even been convicted of using Nazi slogans. Even more ominous, this election was held on the 85th anniversary of the invasion of Poland, which makes the AfD’s win somehow even more damning. One young father is trying to figure out how to explain it to his three- and six-year-old kids:

“We don’t talk much about politics so far. He’s more into ‘Paw Patrol,’” Meister said. “It’s hard to explain. How is it that people are so proud to vote for a party that is so bad for everyone?”

Now we get to the good stuff:

Older Germans who lived through the Nazi reign of terror are frightened. Many believed their country had developed an immunity to nationalism and assertions of racial superiority after confronting the horrors of its past through education and laws to outlaw persecution.

But Holocaust survivor Charlotte Knobloch, president of the Jewish Community of Munich and Upper Bavaria, cautioned against labeling AfD’s successes as an aberration.

“Nobody should now speak of ‘protest’ or look for other excuses,” Knobloch said in a statement. “The numerous voters made their decision consciously, many wanted to make the extremists on the fringes responsible.”

Knobloch was 6 years old when she saw the synagogues of Munich burning and watched helplessly as two Nazi officers marched away a beloved friend of her father on Nov. 9, 1938, or Kristallnacht — the “Night of Broken Glass” — when Nazis terrorized Jews throughout Germany and Austria.

Gudrun Pfeifer and Ursula Klute, two retirees from the northwestern city of Osnabrueck who are visiting Berlin this week, said Sunday’s vote also brought back grim memories from their early childhood days during and after World War II.

“I know what this can all lead to,” Pfeifer, 83, said Monday as her voice broke, recalling how her family was separated during the last months of the war and beyond. She was stranded in Berlin for more than a year.

“The city was in ruins, we were all starving. I was very ill — my sister thought I was going to die,” Pfeifer added.

Unfortunately, young people are ever so slightly more likely to vote for the AfD than the population overall, which obviously spells disaster for the future. The article closes with this ominous warning:

Klute, 78, also said she was distressed by AfD’s successes among the younger population.

“People always forget the lessons from history,” she said.

The only thing this article is missing (other than, you know, any discussion of the AfD’s actual policy proposals) is a paragraph noting that Saxony and Thuringia were among the earliest states to support the Nazi party electorally back in 1928. Perhaps the authors were simply unaware, or perhaps they ran out of room with their other guilt-by-association quotations.

And a followup question: In what sense is a party that got 1/3 of the vote "far-" anything? They seem objectively mainstream based on that measure. Should I be using something else to categorize parties?

I have little to do with East Germany, so I have no idea what the consequences for them will be. Possibly anti-AFD coalitian governments that cannot actually govern?

For Germany as a whole, I suppose this will put a small damper on rampant leftism while destigmatizing right-wing views to a small extent. It will drag the center parties somewhat to the right, or at least away from the left. There's no telling what the next federal election will bring, though my money is on yet another barely-functional anti-AFD coalition. Or maybe I just have status quo bias.

Ultimately I am happy about this. Germany needs to get away from its infinitely damaging leftist culture warriors, and this is a step in the right direction, no matter what follows.

As long as the cordon sanitaire around the AfD survives, mightn’t results like this just further strengthen the position of leftist culture warriors? If the CDU won’t form a government with the AfD, they’ll have to keep making more and more concessions to the Left, the Greens, the SPD, and now the BSW. My impression of the CDU is that they’re so weak, they’ll concede practically anything if it allows them to form a government that excludes the AfD. If I’m right about that, it seems like the only way for further AfD victories to mean anything is for the AfD to get an actual majority, which is virtually impossible in Germany’s parliamentary system. (Though the AfD can definitely influence some things if they control over a third of the seats, as is now the case in Thuringia.) Is there something I’m missing?

Though the AfD can definitely influence some things if they control over a third of the seats, as is now the case in Thuringia.

Didn't they lose one of the seats to a recount?

That was in Saxony, where they went from 41 seats out of 120 to just 40. They have 32 out of 88 seats in Thuringia.

Sure, they can go further left to align themselves more with their prospective coalition partners, but:

  1. That doesn't seem to be what the current CDU leadership intends to do. Granted, they're in opposition so all we have to go on is hot air, but at the very least right now they seem to flirt with various right-wing positions.
  2. If they swing left again, they'll probably bleed more voters and feed the AfD.
  3. I'm fairly confident that they are conscious of 2. and thus do 1.
  4. There is no niche to their left that they can occupy.

Now, when all's said and done I have no faith in the CDU and they will probably just say whatever they think gets them back into power, and once there will run a business as usual government. They do not, as far as I can tell, have any real stomach for culture warring over contentious issues. But at least strategically I don't see them going further left as a problem for the AfD.

My impression of the CDU is that they’re so weak, they’ll concede practically anything if it allows them to form a government that excludes the AfD

The old quip about the Holy Roman Empire is even more true of the CDU: neither Christian, nor democratic, nor a union

I am sorry, but I don't see it.

The German word 'Union' simply means 'merger', no relation to trade unions. I guess that it refers to the fact that both Catholics (which had their own party in Weimar) and Protestants are welcome.

I also think that the CDU is in fact democratic. There were parties which were genuinely anti-democratic, such as the KPD (which wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat), monarchists or the NSDAP. The CDU/CSU wants none of that. If by some miracle, the SPD had won an absolute majority in Bavaria in the 1970s, they would have peacefully transferred power to them without pulling a Trump.

Their Christianity is indeed debatable. But then again, you can't look into the hearts of people. Perhaps Merz has deeply held Christian beliefs, or perhaps his most cherished belief is that he should be chancellor and he recognizes that he won't get there leading the FDP. Perhaps Christianity (as in WWJD) played a role in Merkel's decision to let the refugees in in 2015.

I don't think the analysis needs to go futher than immigration. This is nothing new in Europe and is a literally continent wide movement, with Germany being slightly behind the curve.

The current level and form of immigration is disliked by a supermajority of the population, and reviled to an extent that it trumps all other concerns for some smaller percentage (maybe 20-30%) and they're willing to vote for absolutely anyone that promises to stop the flood and doesn't have a track record of lying about the subject.

The only thing novel here is Wagenknechts party coming in and being anti-immigration from the left.

The AfD is at the very least flirting with the far right, if not being it itself. But overall the core issue is that the grand coalition under the Merkel CDU was so "pure centrist" that there effectively is a vacuum for a proper, believable moderate right. Remember: The start of the current immigration problems in the popular conception was Merkel's 2015 complete surrender to immigration on the basis that any limitation, any requirements that could possibly, theoretically keep a legitimate asylum seeker from entering the country is not morally justifiable. Which in practice meant that we actively filtered our immigrants based on honesty - that is, any immigrant stupid enough to be honest risked to have to go back, while brazen lying was consistently rewarded except if it could be proven beyond doubt (which is almost impossible in practice). The same goes now for deportations; Almost only proven criminals are affected with an order, and the majority of orders still goes unprocessed for a variety of reasons.

Scrolling forward to today, in polls around 40% of germans state that they think the CDU/CSU does not want to limit immigration at all. And this is the allegedly farthest right party considered legitimate by the establishment! No matter your own political position, it should be obvious that any functioning democracy WILL generate a new right given due time. Well, now we have that, and it is the AfD and to some degree the BSW (which is far-left on economic issues, but right-leaning on several social issues by public conception). Noting that both are somewhat kooky, incompetent and include extremists is true, but also increasingly beyond the point - if I think that, say, immigration is the most serious issue, I will vote for someone who at least attempts to limit it. Voting for someone who competently and sanely works against my interests and for his own would be stupid, after all.

far right

literally the only thing that makes them 'far right' is opposition to infinity migration.

further normalization of the German- and by extension European- far right.

Bullshit.

Citizenry never wanted this level of immigration. It was imposed from above by foreign agents in the so-called 'civil society' and by domestic activists who used regulations and humsn rights legislation to do an end run around democracy and majority interests.

'Far right' is code for minimum amount of noticeable political activity by natives in pursuit of their long term interests.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats