The more “radical” the pose, the more isolated it becomes around the party. The Liberal Democrats must be prepared to compromise.
Opposition leader Friedrich Merz at a press conference: Without the CDU, there would no longer be a free democratic majority in the medium term. Photo: Lisa Johansen/Reuters
Perhaps the most popular and overused phrase among us is “That’s impossible.” Depending on the personality and mood, this phrase is delivered with a tone of routine anger, contempt, and sometimes resignation. From the current debate on immigration policy and the recent election to Heino’s campaign ad for Donald Trump, nothing is possible.
The problem is that we say it doesn’t work, but it does. It happens. Permanent distancing on ethical grounds doesn’t change that. The crucial cultural shift is no longer about saying what is impossible, but about asking what is possible, how it is possible, and most importantly, with whom.
It is true that the current situation is not good. Not only socio-ecological economic policies, but also all forms of future policies according to the changed reality are rejected everywhere in politics and the media. There are nostalgic reactionaries who are delusional (AfD, BSW, parts of the Eastern CDU), nostalgic and fossilized social democrats (SPD and Western CDU), and nostalgic progressives (including some of the Greens), who adhere to standards of progress that are no longer grounded in late modernity.
If we say that the current federal government is “at the end”, it would probably not be wrong. But the question is: Under what conditions can the next government do better after the new elections? And what exactly? The media-society dynamics have emerged that could soon (FDP) or later (SPD, Greens) all three government parties, fearing for their survival, move away from common ground and seek salvation.
This text is week. From left, our weekly! Every week, wochentaz covers the current world and the world that could be. It is a leftist weekly with a voice, attitude, and a special Taz worldview. You can find new news every Saturday at the kiosk, and you can also subscribe.
Without the CDU there would be no liberal democratic majority.
But if even these members of a liberal democratic society can no longer communicate, the situation will become even more difficult. “In the process of erosion of the common, democracy becomes a stumbling block form of government, because conflicts within democracy can only be productive if they take place within the framework of the common,” writes Harald Welzer in our magazine taz FUTURZWEI.
The ethical division into good people (e.g. us) and others (Merz, Lindner, the Greens who think of compromise) within a liberal democratic society is not a necessary “attitude”, but it actually means doing the job of the AfD and the BSW. Much more pernicious is to drive the CDU or parts of it towards the AfD based on ethical outrage. This does not mean that we should support the party’s immigration policy or other opportunism without substance. Of course, if you have different ideas, you should try to create an atmosphere against Friedrich Merz. But this means that we must always make it clear that without the CDU in the short and medium term there can no longer be a liberal democratic majority.
The coalition and the “right center” should remain on the political and cultural spectrum from moderately progressive to moderate to conservative center (pro-EU, NATO, Ukrainian, socially liberal, market economy), and can choose long-term social and ecological alliances. Temporary politics. Without a democratic majority, there is no democracy. The more “radical” the pose, the more lonely it becomes on the periphery.
That is why we do not ‘fight’ against the ‘right’, but argue with each other about common ways to keep right-wing populism and right-wing radicalism as small as possible. And that brings us back to the important point for the future of this country. How does that work? It is tricky, but you can ask Hendrik Wüst and Mona Neubaur.
