Schröder has been a disaster, so I'm rooting for Merkel

[T_i_B]

Article by Martin Kettle, colummist for the Guardian (and generally considered a lefty by most people, although he does go all Blairite sometimes). Make of this what you will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1563374,00.html

Schröder's likely defeat on September 18 will be a milestone not just for Germany but for social democracy. For half a century, his SPD was the party by which all other parties of the centre-left measured themselves. It was the model of how a non-Marxist party of the left could stand for both social justice and the mixed economy - and win elections too. Social democrats came from all over the world, Britain included, to see how the SPD did it.

But if the European left once learned from the SPD's successes, now they must prepare to learn from its defeats too. The SPD's central failure has been its inability to provide a coherent social-market-based answer to the problems posed for the nation state by globalisation. There are many reasons behind this failure, some only too understandable. No country in Europe, after all, has had to absorb so many economic, political and cultural shocks as Germany in the aftermath of its 1990 reunification. The rest of Europe still underestimates the scale of this fantastic effort.

Nevertheless, too much of the SPD remains too comfortable with a vision of Germany, and of Europe, that is too heavily defined by the cold war. German social democrats cling to a social and economic model that made great sense - and was economically sustainable - as long as the Berlin Wall existed. But the collapse of communism did not just make a united Germany possible. It also unleashed the hugely dynamic era of capitalist globalisation in which we all now live. Billions of people, mainly in Asia, will be the beneficiaries, as the EU-China spat exemplifies. The European welfare model has had to adapt to this reality or die.

Six years after embracing Schröder, British ministers are now rooting for Angela Merkel. In many respects, London misleads itself about the possibilities. If Britain were more seriously engaged it might be different. Nevertheless Labour is right to support her. Not that Merkel is the answer to Germany's or the EU's problems. She isn't. But she is a less bad answer than Schröder. She offers some prospect, at least until the CDU starts losing Länder elections, of a government that will stick with the reform agenda while remaining true to inclusive social-market principles and spurning France's desire for anti-American grandstanding. A Merkel government will be good for Europe. It is the ultimate indictment of the German left that one finds oneself saying such things with such confidence.

[neweurope]

1. Merkel will be terrible. The author conveniently forgets that

the SPD chancellors were few and far between. Merkels party, the CDU, has steered us into the corner we're in now including a huge deficit. Schröder couldn't do any miracles. Globalization is hitting all western countries and things will continue to get worse under Merkel, too.

"The European welfare model has had to adapt to this reality or die." Well - Schröder - whom I did not vote for - was the first German chancellor ever to try and adopt the welfare model. The CDU before him had done nothing. That's exactly why a lot of people hate him now. True that Merkel - now that SPD has started the process - will make things far, far worse for the ordinary working - or out-of-job - citizen.

Most certainly she will be bad for Europe, and she will be bad for the ordinary German citizen. It shocks me to hear that LABOR are rooting for a conservative in Germany. But then, well, the Bushistas are rooting for Merkel, too.

-------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[T_i_B]

5. Why is "new" Labour supporting Merkel?

Well partly because as others have suggested, CDU policies are more in line with Blairite ones but also I think because Labour under Blair has taken the Manchester United supporter approach to political loyalties, backing whichever side is most likely to win. Hence they supported Schroeder back in 1997 but this time round seem to be cuddling up to Merkel instead.

[Karenina]

2. VERY. BAD. IDEA.

You are missing the voluminous text between the lines.

[mwwittin]

3. What???

No, this is wrong. Merkel will be bad, worse than Schröder. England only wants Merkel because she likes the Americans and English more than the Germans!! Schröder stands for the workers and for the poor and Merkel stands for the theives and business owners and the big companies. Schröder is not perfect but he is good and the SPD is better. The problem is that people are tired of the uneumployment caused by globalisation and by workers coming from Turkey and Poland to take the jobs we had before. Without this there would be little problem! I don't understand this.

[Kellanved]

4. Uhm... has Kettle even looked at the SPD's reforms?

Even the economist seems to have quite a different opinion.

Someone has to explain to me, since when introducing the UK healthcare system (albeit in a private variation) and flat tax is "true to inclusive social-market principles". She's a self-styled moderate, but her cabinet picks are US-style neocons.

Also, the fact is that Merkel does not have the standing in her own party to really bring new reforms underway; she is far more likely to lead the country back to the Kohl stagnation (after a few acts to reduce worker's rights).

Sorry, to say so, but Kettle is a idiot. And yes, labour is "right" in supporting her: "right", as in "not left".

[bobbieinok]

6. article and DU responses are interesting......thanks

[Dirk39]

7. Give me a break...

Hello from Germany,

if the right-wing DLC Democrats in the USA would have a patent on the DLC-strategy to turn democratic parties into neoliberal corparations, the Labour Party in the UK and Schröder's SPD in Germany would be bankrupt.

This isn't my leftist fantasy, the people who have destroyed the Democratic Party in the USA to push Clinton into Power did say so...

And people like Blair and Schröder have just copied their strategies, most of all the neurotic swing-voter-desease, 100%.

It's cynical and funny how this stupid guy tells the truth:
"a social and economic model that made great sense - and was economically sustainable - as long as the Berlin Wall existed."


It made sense to the corporate ruling class to respect social rights, economic rights, democratic rights and human needs as long as the Berlin Wall existed. It's over now. Let us all become citizens of New Orleans now! This is what the free market hell has to offer to 99% of humanity.

This idiot might not speak Truth to Power, but he openly speaks Power to Truth.

Speechless in Germany,

Dirk

[K-W]

11. Nice post Dirk.

You can see how much the author despises the true left.

[daydreamer]

8. I did a test and it said that I agree

more with FDP on issues http://www.stern.de/_components/content/politik/wahlomat/ But if I could vote, I would vote for Schroder, simply because he stood up to Bush.

On the other hand, I don't like the fact that he requested the Mistrauensvote from the Bundestag and the vorgezogene Wahl. A political farce IMO.

[mwwittin]

9. This is true

"On the other hand, I don't like the fact that he requested the Mistrauensvote from the Bundestag and the vorgezogene Wahl. A political farce IMO."

Many others think this is true. Very important. Voters see him making bad political decisions, so maybe he doesn't get support from people who should.

[T_i_B]

12. "simply because he stood up to Bush"

Maybe this is just be being an ill-informed Brit but I was under the impression that Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq war was a major factor in him winning last time. However, that issue may well be under the radar now, which would work in favour of the CDU.

If any German DUer's wish to contradict me then feel free, as I think it's safe to say that German DUer's will be a lot more knowledgeable about this then me.

[Kellanved]

13. yes and no

The clear anti-war course made the SPD the better choice for many people who would have voted for the PDS otherwise.
So, while the votes gained by the opposition to the Iraq war weren't that many, they took the PDS out of the equation.
Also, considering that Schröder won by 6,000 votes, it is pretty certain that the SPD wouldn't have won with any other position on Iraq. On the other hand, the post-election analysis showed that most voters didn't put that much importance in the issue.
The SPD has and had a sound reform plan, the CDU doesn't and didn't - that was the issue and this is still the issue.

And just like the last time around, most people (about 60%) want Schröder to win the upcoming election.

[T_i_B]

16. Only 6000 votes?

In a country as big as Germany? Was it really that tight?

Here in Britain we have first past the post and you vote for one of around 650 MP's. In my constituency alone the sitting MP has a majority of twice that.

If Schroeder's margin of victory really was that thin then I'm sure Frau Merkel would have wanted a recount.

[Kellanved]

19. That's the reason for the early elections

The SPD got four more seats than the CDU, based on the special circumstance that it won more districts (a rather complicated aspect of German elections).

The SPD had 18,488,668 votes, the christian parties 18,482,641; however it translated to 251 vs 248 seats. However, two of those Bundestag members died, reducing the lead to a single seat.
Of course the respective coalition partners changed the weight of the blocs a little (55 greens vs 47 free markets), but it was as slight a margin as possible - it is not a comfortable way to lead a country, when all MPs have to be handled with extreme care.

And more to the point: the conservatives had the majority in the joint panel of the upper and lower house; they used it to stop pretty much all legislation passed by the lower house.

[T_i_B]

23. Hmmm

The SPD had 18,488,668 votes, the Christian parties 18,482,641; however it translated to 251 vs 248 seats.

On that evidence the German system is not quite as proportional as the proponents of PR over claim it is! Interesting, and on that basis an issue such as the Iraq war would have made the difference last time.

[Kellanved]

24. well,

there's an obvious mistake in my post above: the SPD had only three seats more than the CDU, but four seats more than the poroportional share of the vote.

The reason for the proportional representation being not a perfect fit is the "two votes" principle and the federal structure.

299 seats are allocated to the districts and at least 299 seats are filled from the lists.

If, in a given state, a party wins a percentage of the vote that would translate to less seats than the number of districts won, then that party is allowed to keep the extra seats.

[T_i_B]

25. That all sounds very complicated

At least first-past-the-post is fairly simple. You vote for your local MP and the party with the most MP's forms the government.

If I had to name an ideal system it would be the US system minus the electoral college. I'm not a great fan of PR at all.

[Kellanved]

26. it most certainly is complicated

But the strange effects are mostly due to the federal system in combination with the FPTP aspect of the vote.

Personally I believe it to be a pretty neat concept.

[Dirk39]

15. Please stay in the USA!

:-)

The FDP is our New Orleans Party.
They were founded 100% by Nazis after WWII. Until the beginning 80's they were the party of both civil rights and radical economic liberalism. They are more radical than Thatcher and Blair and nearly 100% of their members and supporters are lobbyists. Their agenda is: communism for the wealthy few, turbocapitalism for the many.
I guess it's the only party in Germany, a terrorist warcriminal and corrupt piece of scum like Henry Kissinger is visiting without being payed for it.

If you like their programm, move to New Orleans, it's their kind of real existing market-freedom...
Dirk

[Kellanved]

21. the FDP has issues? who knew? Who would have guessed?

The party started out as a nazi-spinoff, had a great phase in the 70s and has degraded since then.

Today they are just conservatives, with two added statements:
1) They don't hate gays
2) They think getting rid of the federal government altogether would be a great idea.

[K-W]

10. Neo-liberal crap. EOM

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I partly agree with Mr. Kettle

Perhaps I would vote for an alternate left wing party, but there is insufficient reason to support Schröder. This is almost certainly resigning oneself to the fate of governance by Angela Merkel and her discredited Thatcherite economic programs. The best that can be hoped for it that a Merkel government will be short lived.

Regrettably, we will hear crowing from American Straussians. Of course, they will conveniently ignore the fact that the Christian Democrats' victory will have nothing to do with any alleged triumph of neoconservatism. It will have everything to do with the failure of the Schröder government to lower unemployment to an acceptable level and the desire of the German people to simply try something else.

This is the same reason that Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Any Republican candidate would have defeated Carter in 1980, and any other Republican candidate than Reagan would have defeated him even more easily.

[replacement]

17. Kettle: the man who thinks Tony Blair is "the world's leading statesman"

It makes sense that such a person should support Merkel, but to be honest i don't think he could care less about what's actually best for Germany. He's been screwing up for ages about France and Germany not endorsing Blairite neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism thoroughly enough- his diatribe after the EU-constitution referendum about how "immature" the French were for wanting to maintain their welfare system demonstrated the strength of his "lefty" credentials- and he wants the governments involved to pay for their blasphemy and the Gospel according to Tony to be further spread. Personally I think it's symbolic of how rotten to the core new labour now is that they and their cronies would act as cheerleaders for the CDU.

Article on France: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1495901,00.html

Blair "world's leading statesman" (WARNING: may require sick bag): http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1526562,00.html

(Edited to add links).

[Briar]

18. Hi, replacement

you've certainly nailed Kettle. The press is full of poeple (like Rentoul in the Indie) who are simply Blair propagandists.

Choosing Merkel simply in the hope that different means better strikes me as comparable to choosing to ride a crocodile because your horse has dropped a shoe!

[fedsron2us]

22. Blair propagandists in the UK 'liberal' press

Surely you are not suggesting that writers in the 'radical' Guardian might just be mouthpieces of the establishment. Next thing you know you will be telling me that they grass up whistleblowers to the authorities whenever the government decides to play hardball over official leaks. Oh I forgot they already did that to Sarah Tisdall over twenty years ago. It is no surprise to find Kettle following in the foot steps of Peter Preston as a lick spittle to those in power. If I knew Merkel had Blair's endorsement then I would definitely want to vote for Schröder.

[moondust]

20. "capitalist globalisation"

Come join our race to the bottom! It's the corporatists' "reform agenda"!