MSM Talking Head Markus Lanz Notices 'Tipping Points' among Germans
And, predictably, 'fails to understand' why Germans are so fed up
As we continue our ongoing coverage of events in Germany, I think you’ll find the below translation of a piece in the (somewhat critical) Berliner Zeitung interesting.
As always, translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.
Markus Lanz, Too, Takes Notices: The Mood is Shifting
Farmers’ protests and a victory for the AfD in East Germany: Markus Lanz painted a bad year 2024 on the wall. But an understanding of citizen anger—is missing.
By Thomas Kurianowicz, Berliner Zeitung, 12 Jan. 2024 [(paywalled) source; archived version]
Markus Lanz is serious when it comes to debates. He himself is regularly the victim of shitstorms because he gets into a fight with Jan Böhmermann or dares [sic] to invite politicians like Sahra Wagenknecht to his show—a courage that may seem a bit cheap in view of the current disillusionment with politics, but for a representative of the state broadcaster requires a certain degree of resistance [against the woke-left ‘consensus’]. Markus Lanz makes an effort to endure the controversy from time to time.
His broadcast on Thursday evening [11 Jan. 2024], after a few days of respite, was about the topics of the week: the farmers' protests, their escalation in northern Germany, the AfD's looming electoral successes, and the possible shift to the right in eastern Germany. Guests included Jens Spahn from the CDU [he was Ms. Merkel’s Health Minister when the ‘Pandemic™’ started], journalist Martin Machowecz of Die Zeit, sociologist Matthias Quent, and economist Philippa Sigl-Glöckner.
Interpretations of a Farmer’s Controversial Poster
As a viewer, you couldn't shake the feeling that when it came to the farmers' protests, even the belligerent Markus Lanz preferred to drive with the handbrake on. With regard to his choice of guests, Jens Spahn, of all people who supports the state, had to play the role of understanding the farmers, who acted as a go-getter for Lanz and as a quasi-populist who dared to attract attention with anti-government slogans to advertise his own party: ‘There is no majority for the government’s policy’, said Spahn, setting the tone.
‘It's bubbling under the surface’, Lanz replied, as if there was still a surface that could still hide the visible displeasure. Lanz didn't really want to get into the Ampel [the SPD-FDP-Green gov’t] bashing and instead stuck to the interpretation of a controversial CDU poster that shows a farmer with a pitchfork that promotes diesel subsidies [fake news, it’s a tax credit]. Isn't such a poster tasteless? Cynical? An incitement of anger?
Critical Reflectivity
Jens Spahn reacted visibly irritated and said, not entirely wrongly, that the debate about controversially designed election posters misses the point: the discontent among the people and the AfD's impending successes. Zeit journalist Machowecz agreed with Spahn and stabbed Lanz in the back. The focus of the debate should be other topics. Spahn added that the spectrum that needs to be discussed does not affect that many topics. He named the main focuses as 'uncontrolled migration', 'tax levies' and 'draconian heating laws' [i.e., the core of the current government’s platform].
As a viewer, one witnessed a debate that lasted more than an hour, the core of which failed to find out where people's dissatisfaction actually comes from. Somehow one felt that a dilemma was blocking the discussion, a dilemma in which the legacy media as a whole finds itself: every profound criticism of the Ampel government, every necessary confrontation with the failure of the Federal Chancellor, every sober analysis of [Economy Minister] Robert Habeck’s actions threatens to be seen as an attempt to overthrow democracy in which no one involved can have any interest.
This is the only way to understand why Spahn was the harshest critic of the Ampel government in the group and why all the other guests, alongside Machowecz, came from the left spectrum used empty boilerplate verbiage to warn Germans against a shift to the right. There seems to be a great fear of naming the problems of this country, such as the impending decline of Germany and the recession that headed our way, which can hardly be prevented if you take a closer look at the current economic figures. At least Lanz didn't go so far as to denigrate the farmers' protests as right-wing, perhaps because he wanted to demonstrate his critical ability to reflect.
The People Are Turning Away
Of course [sic] it is correct to warn about the consequences of an AfD victory. And yet many of the conversations with politicians seem strangely distant, especially today, when the country is threatened with fundamental change. The decision-makers in this country are trying to keep people's hopelessness at a distance and to discredit criticism of the government by describing it as illegitimate hostility to democracy. The past months and years, with a fickle Chancellor and a miscalculating, well-intentioned yet tragic Economy Minister [Habeck] have brought about today's misery is slowly becoming an unpleasant fact that official circles [I call them the juste milieu] are reluctant to express.
The demonisation of [left-wing populist] Sahra Wagenknecht, the unwillingness to accept reality, the real, authentic fight for voters, an understanding of the problems on the streets, the sense of the economic pressures that exists in middle and lower income groups—all these failures on the part of the decision-makers in this country are now coming back to haunt them. [line break added]
‘The cake is getting smaller’, said Lanz on his show. He's right about that. And Spahn? He notes that when he travels through East Germany, people have the impression that they are being ruled—as before 1989—by politicians who use beautiful pictures to paint the grey reality in colours in order to distract the people from the facts. So that you don't get stupid thoughts. And anyone who protests will be discredited. The fact that politicians are now discussing who can join which three- or four-party alliances with whom in order to prevent the AfD in East Germany is an indictment of the country. These calculation games seem desperate and prove—as was also shown by Markus Lanz—that many have not yet understood the seriousness of the situation. The people are turning away.
Bottom Lines
Further particulars are provided here:
The mood is definitely shifting, across Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
People are fed up, and, unlike say Norway, Germany doesn’t have black gold to throw money around to placate the population.
The cognitive dissonance between the ‘Berlin Blob’ and esp. East Germany is becoming more and more pronounced, and it can be suppressed only with increasing difficulty.
Where, then, will this lead? As everyone knowns, predictions are very hard, esp. about the future. I shall tempt fate here, though, for there are pan-EU elections scheduled for early May 2024.
Right now, the AfD is trailing the CDU by a few percentage points in nationwide polling.
The similarly ‘right-wing’ FPÖ in Austria is polling consistently above 30% and are far ahead of all other parties.
In both countries, ‘the blob’ frenetically discusses how to continually exclude these ‘right-wing’ parties from future governments.
I think it is conceivable that the AfD will end up ‘winning’ a plurality of the votes in the upcoming EU elections, as will the FPÖ. This will upset ‘the blob’ tremendously and it might trigger a snap election in Germany (regular federal elections in Austria will take place at the latest in autumn 2024, but they, too, may be held earlier).
The repercussions for domestic and, more importantly, EU policies—remember: a new Commission must be convened after said EU elections—are going to be drastic in terms of more distancing between the peoples and ‘those in Brussels’ (and Berlin) will follow.
With that kind of alienation being palpable now, it’s everyone’s guess how much bigger it will in autumn. One thing, though, appears obvious: throw in the impending acknowledgement of Ukraine’s defeat (or a resolution favouring Russia), the ongoing atrocities in Israel/Palestine, and the current escalation vs. Yemen, and we’re looking at a fierce economic downturn exacerbated by world events.
None of the ‘alternatives’ to the current governments are seaworthy in calm weather; a big storm is brewing, and it will likely bring quite profound hardships.
My hope is that there’s going to be adults coming forward who’re willing and able to steer the ship of state; for the consequences of enduring the current crop of clowns, fools, and charlatans will be—devastating.
Quite a good take by the Berliner Zeitung (although their criticism of Lanz is far too friendly, for my taste). This line gets at the heart of things:
"...every profound criticism of the Ampel government, every necessary confrontation with the failure of the Federal Chancellor, every sober analysis of [Economy Minister] Robert Habeck’s actions threatens to be seen as an attempt to overthrow democracy..."
It reminds me (yet again) of Vaclav Havel's "Power of the Powerless" (from 1978!) and his concept of post-totalitarianism. Note, Havel clarifies: "I do not wish to imply by the prefix 'post-' that the system is no longer totalitarian; on the contrary, I mean that it is totalitarian in a way fundamentally different from classical dictatorships..."
For example, I am repeatedly left dismayed by my educated colleagues and friends who instinctively regurgitate "party" talking points such as the farmers/pandemic/anti-war/energy-policy protests being manipulated by extreme-right interests. Do they not hear their Orwellian selves effectively saying "Thou shall not criticise the party: all criticisms are treasonous, all critics are traitors?
The Berliner Zeitung author's thoughts echoe my own from a conversation with a child of the post-war boomer generation at the weekend wherein I tried to explain this post-totalitarianism in the way the government-MSM-academy nexus controls the range of acceptable political discourse and pejoratively labels and deligitimatises all who would stray outside its bounds. Being frozen in a historical understanding of what a totalitarian regime meant continues to blind to the unmistakable nature of our current system.
The broader cognitive dissonance is growing. In the meantime, the preferred approach among the juste-milieu (for whom the system still adequately provides a comfortable existence) is to stave-off confronting reality by virtue signalling to each other that they remain united in their loyalty to the regime and in their disdain for those daring to question it.
The centre will hold until it cannot hold any longer. And then?
A "keep them out coslition" has been tried in Greece, Italy, Denmark and sweden. It doesn't work. It only furthers the pre-existing corruption and increases the damage done to the nation when coalition parties double-down on their stupidity.
In Sweden, the Socialist Democrats who carry the lion's share of the blame for our failed state, now blame the Sweden Democrats for the Socialist Democrat's policies: "If their party hadn't existed and people hadn't objected to our policies, we wouldn't have had to go as far as we went" is the sentiment expressed.
Idiots. They are like someone with a sore, waiting until it has gone gangrenous until seeking medical aid, or even acknowledging there is a sore.