Do people still recite nursery rhymes? If so, they might switch from shock at a not so good “little Jack Horner” in Washington, pulling a bitter “Christmas plum” from a pie to another Mother Goose standard, fit for Berlin: “Rub-a-dub-dub, Three men in a tub…They all put out to sea.” The German tub proved leaky and sank after Christian Lindner, head of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and a top member of the government trio, finally succeeded in forcing Olaf Scholz, head Social Democrat (SPD) and chancellor, to dump him and his party, leaving only the Greens as partner.
Why on earth did Lindner—a proud man of perfect posture, finely-tailored suits and a changing but always finely sculpted three-day beard—choose what seems like pure self-sacrifice, collapsing a government in which his little party, though its weakest member, held four nice cabinet seats with him in a powerful position as finance minister?
In truth, in all the trio’s three years of government, Lindner had never plied the tub’s oars properly. Or help bail it out. Now he watched the polls giving his FDP only 4% or occasionally, just barely, the 5% needed for further existence in a new Bundestag. Seeing little hope in the shaky trio tub he had himself been so purposefully upsetting, he called a special meeting of business leaders which overlapped, indeed cold-shouldered a regular meeting called by Scholz, who could no longer overlook this ugly gauntlet and dismissed the elegant but errant provocateur with his fellow ministers (except for one man who quit the FDP so he could hold onto his nice warm cabinet seat with all its perks.)
The Greens remained but, without the FDP, Scholz no longer has a majority in the Bundestag. So the die was cast, the Rubicon crossed, the “traffic light government” with its red-green-yellow party colors was doomed to sink. Scholz must now call for a vote of confidence which, after some haggling about the date, will take place on December 16th. This will inevitably be lost, thus providing a tasty Christmas plum for the opposition Christians (CDU-CSU), for President Steinmeier must then call for a national election. By agreement it will be on February 23rd, far earlier than the regular planned date next September.
The political parties will thus have to electioneer in the face of winter storms, and in that short time many of Germany’s small or tiny parties will be unable to collect the necessary signatures to get on the ballot. But by springtime a new ruling trio— or a duo—must be formed. Fears for the future are appropriate, but not tears for the past—not if we take a look at where that tub was swimming.
While the German economy was climbing out of the rough COVID crisis the Ukraine war blew up. Germany took another hard blow right to the solar plexus with its own ban on inexpensive oil and gas from Russia, a ban demanded for years by imperious American ambassadors. Now it was achieved by that not really so mysterious pipeline explosion in the Baltic, which Biden had so amazingly predicted. And also by trade sanctions which seem to have hurt the Russian economy less than that of Germany.
Of course, the accompanying arms buildup by the biggest military might in Europe (and proud of it) was welcomed with open arms (and bank accounts) by men like Armin Papperger , CEO of Rheinmetall, the producer of items like Panther tanks, whose order books have now hit the ten-digit level and whose personal pay check adds up to a comfortable € 2-3 million every year.
Thus, billions were spent both on aid to the Zelensky government and on the giant domestic armament program sold to the public as an urgent defense necessity to counter “the Russian threat.” This threat has appeared and reappeared in Germany in 1914, the 1930s, after 1945 and now again, louder than ever, with similar barked Prussian commands: “Achtung! Die Russen kommen!” as dangerously false as ever, and often followed by eastward expansion, invasion and, far too often, catastrophe, with atomic annihilation an added danger this time around.
Somehow this spending didn’t help all too many people. Liquefied gas from America was expensive. So were the required new port facilities. Valuable trade with Russia dwindled towards null, Chinese trade, even more important, suffered increasingly (also from Chinese advances with electric cars), and Trump tariffs cast more shadows ahead. The German economy was losing its former glamor, as symbolized by the slump in its showcase company, Volkswagen, now facing sharp cuts or even shutdowns of important units. Forecasts of minimal growth in trade and industry sectors, even minus predictions, were dangerous enough in today’s cold world, while grocery prices stayed high and heating and rent costs bit deeper. Working class folk, also at middle-class levels, were disturbed and worried, as shown sharply in recent state elections in East Germany, with the three traffic-light government parties suffering most. How did they react, with elections now moved up to February?
Lindner and his FDP had made few pretenses, but openly and blatantly rejected any tax increases on the super-wealthy who, he claims, would use the rescued money to improve the economy. That’s quite true—in terms of yachts, jets, high-rise penthouses and Cayman Island postal accounts. What about the “third of a nation” hit by poverty, fear of eviction notices or even a car breakdown? Oh, they would also be benefitted by “trickle-down” from prosperous industries untroubled by “too many bureaucratic regulations” such as requiring workers’ benefits and decent wages in the home country and limits on murderous exploitation of tea, coffee or fruit picker families, unprotected miners, and endangered seamstresses in poorer countries .
The Social Democrats, down to third place with 15% and facing a desperate necessity to win back former working-class voters, called again for improvements on issues like minimum wages, pension age, benefits for children and aid for the jobless. But their Defense Minister Pistorius, energetic and surprisingly more popular than his party, wants ever more for the heightening confrontation with Russia (and China) and an increased readiness for war. Scholz, while supporting every renewed billion spent on weapons, is at least a degree or two cooler on confrontation and still rejects giving the giant Taurus missiles to Kyiv. But he still gets—and deserves—much of the blame for the worsening economy. Nor were remaining working-class ties improved when he replaced Lindner as Finance Minister with Jörg Kukies, whose experience, after studies at the Sorbonne, Harvard’s Kennedy School and U. of Chicago, had been seventeen years with Goldman Sachs. Need one say more?
The Greens, now at 12%, led by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economics Minister Habeck, stick to first place in the “Ruin Russia!” campaign, blood-thirstier than ever, but still trying to hold on to their original image with college-trained, upper middle-class liberal followers, calling for ecology reform to prevent climate warming or laws on marijuana permission and the right to choose any name and gender you wish (or none at all), matters of lesser or no interest for those with tightening budgets. And they continue making one compromise after another to please their business friends, including those across the Atlantic, and to get seats in coalition state governments. As usual when elections approach, these two parties try to sound more socially conscious, but most voters see this as classic examples of talking the talk, not walking the walk.
In the face of widespread dissatisfaction, the opposition Christian CDU has also weakened, but with its associated Bavarian CSU partner, still manages to hold onto much of its traditional rural and small-town base and its first-place at 30-33%. It feels certain about soon regaining the upper hand.
Today’s Christians bear little resemblance to the fairly moderate reign of Angela Merkel. The new chancellor next spring will most likely be Friedrich Merz (properly Joachim-Friedrich Martin Josef Merz), a multi-millionaire bank expert who always opposed her. Visually most notable by the stubborn tuft of hair in the middle of his bald head, he lines up politically close to Donald Trump. From 2016 bis 2020 he was Chairman of the German Board of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management company. Need one say more? Like Trump he abhors Communism and all those unpleasant immigrants trying to invade and violate homeland and our (and especially Bavarian) purity—and wants to make Germany great again.
But arithmetic is a stubborn science. Thirty-two percent, even if joined by Lindner’s remaining mercenaries, is not a majority. Merz does not yet dare to break all taboos and embrace the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), now in alarming second place nationally with 19%. Maybe later! (Unless current calls for banning it as “anti-constitutional succeed—a lengthy process.)
So, to form a stable government and despite despising those weak-kneed Greens and Social Democrats, he will most likely have to swallow some emotions and share cabinet seats with one or the other of them as junior partner. Will he—and one of them—risk that slippery bridge? They’ve done it before, not seldom on a state level, swallowing pride and principles.
Merz stated three main principles he would work for as chancellor: a clear commitment, with all his heart, to the USA, untroubled by a Donald Trump presidency. Secondly, an EU capable of acting globally “on an equal footing in the world… with free trade agreements not overloaded in terms of climate and social policy.” And finally, “Germany must fulfill its leadership responsibility in Europe and the world” with “values clearly those of the West… Despite its location in the middle of Europe, it does not have a mediating role between East and West… Realpolitik as the art of the possible…can only be shaped from a position of strength, including military strength.”
Thus, on the basic issue of military build-up, weapons sales and demanding military victory “up to the last Ukrainian”, Merz and his CDU-CSU double party could join with either Green leaders or equally bellicose Social Democrats like Chairman Lars Klingbeil or Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, a possible candidate for chancellor (or vice-chancellor under Merz) to replace the more hesitant Scholz—with Lindner’s FDP hanging on if it is still around.
These traditional post-1945 parties are also in general agreement—to their shame—in their almost unquestioning support for Netanyahu’s Israel and its heartbreaking genocide in Gaza, all of Palestine and Lebanon as well, with no questions about selling weapons for the IDF—despite daily pictures of the total destruction of nearly all housing, schools , mosques, clinics , theaters, of murdered children by the thousand, of tight lids restricting food and medicine for a starving population, of over a hundred journalists searched out and assassinated, of surgeons imprisoned, prisoners tortured and “safety zones” bombed.
In this policy these parties are supported by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which lives from a hatred for Muslims or Arabs outdone only by the Israeli cabinet. Against immigrants—especially any who believe in Islam—it and the largely obliging media have built up prejudice so strong that it has pushed all but the LINKE in a similar direction. Indeed, as mentioned above, especially the CDU-CSU double team is moving closer and closer to the AfD though their game of footsy must still remain largely concealed under the table, with only a conservative toe or two peeping out here and there, hinting at what may yet come.
But, perhaps surprisingly, the AfD defies the others in calling for negotiations and peace in Ukraine. Several explanations have been offered: It opposes the European Union in general—and therefore its main policy as well . It opposes the USA, wanting Germany to be a junior partner to nobody, with a return to Germany’s one-time world glory and power. It wants votes in elections and has observed that about half the Germans, and a far greater proportion of East Germans yearn for lasting peace. Fourthly, there are whispers that Putin may be supporting what he considers the lesser danger.
This leaves the two leftist parties, the LINKE and the breakaway alliance still named Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), founded just a year ago but amazingly successful for a beginner. In the European Parliament vote, far outpacing it parent LINKE with its pitiful 2.7 %, it achieved 6.2% and went on to get 12 to 14% in three East German elections. Several reasons were offered for such success. Not unimportant was that “Sahra” is attractive to look at, a wonderful speaker and a great debater, welcome as a viewer attraction in talk shows despite her opinions. Then there was the appeal of the BSW as a genuine protest party, not a part of “the establishment,” which was the fate of the LINKE in Berlin and East German states where it had joined (or in Thuringia led) the governments. A third appeal, sad to say, catered to the growing hostility not only to excess immigration but often to the immigrants themselves. This, it was generally felt, was caused by Sahra Wagenknecht’s hopes to lure voters with anti-immigrant prejudices away from the strong AfD. As it happened, her BSW won very few voters away from the AfD, which came in alarmingly strong, in no small measure because of the immigrant issue, but rather instead from the LINKE.
Most significant, however, even though embarrassingly echoed by the AfD, was the BSW demand for peace negotiations, not weapons, for Ukraine, augmented by the demand to reject American middle-range missiles stationed in Germany, which represented a constant danger of confrontation—with a missile response hitting Germany first and foremost.
BSW success at the polls, mostly from former LINKE voters, surely reflected the disappointment of many old GDR citizens with their former party’s weakness—or worse—regarding both regarding Gaza and also its acquiescence with the mainstream, loading the entire blame for the Ukraine war on the shoulders of their bete noire, Vladimir Putin, almost totally downplaying or ignoring the underlying, provocative role of the USA and its NATO. That leads to a dismissal as secondary an 80-year history of corrupt “color revolutions”, reactionary regime changes or outright bombing and destroying—to wreck any country which is disobedient or bars the path of US billionaires to world domination. Ukraine, Georgia (vainly, it now seems), Moldova are obviously the current steps in an often bloody trail, with thousands, sometimes millions of deaths—in Guatemala, Iran, Haiti, Grenada, Peru, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Chile, Afghanistan and many, many others not always so openly visible. Indeed, the GDR was also a victim. Was the LINKE being punished for disregarding this basic truth of recent world history?
Whatever the reasons, the LINKE lost its leadership role in Thuringia, barely survived in Saxony and failed to get even a single seat in Brandenburg. This loss of support, which might even prove fatal in the special national election in February, has finally forced the LINKE to take a less obviously pro-Bibi stand on Israel and Gaza and to move toward a compromise on NATO and the Ukraine. Does this mark a genuine move away from the “liberal middle” which has almost caused its death? Or is the change too little and too late? Next February may well be a milestone—in either direction.
Sahra’s party also faces major choices. It was successful enough to be needed in forming state coalitions. But her demand that such coalitions take a stand against war and missiles has proved hard to swallow for Saxony’s Christians and Social Democrats, who are now trying to form a minority government, bypassing the AfD but dependent, in every vote or major decision, on sufficient support from the BSW or the small covies of LINKE and Greens.
A compromise seemed possible in Thuringia, with Christians, Social Democrats and BSW heading toward a new trio (with or without the weakened LINKE). But Sahra objected; it was too weak on peace and war, she felt, life-and-death matters even for wooded, inland Thuringia. A quarrel followed—the first in the new party—and exposed other questions; how much is the BSW a one-woman show or how much will the state affiliates have to say, possibly with ideas differing from Sahra (whose media popularity has unsurprisingly been reduced? A party meeting in a few weeks could offer answers.
But there was one interesting success! In Brandenburg, where the Christians have far less to say, the popular SPD minister-president spited (and angered) his national leaders by agreeing with Sahra’s BSW on a draft for joint exploratory talks. It read: “We have agreed (…) to promote a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict and the reduction of the associated tensions within Europe through negotiations with the parties to the conflict and the aim of a ceasefire and lasting peace.”
Such a statement, simple as it is, represents a victory when signed by a state Social Democratic leader. It could be as good an omen as the olive leaf on Noah’s ark. If the BSW sticks to its guns or, better, its peace pipes, and the forces for peace begin to work together again, we can take hope. Perhaps these signs motivated Scholz, in these pre-election weeks, to engage in a long overdue, not quite friendly but evidently not hostile telephone exchange with Putin, the first in two years.
He is already under intense fire for that telephone call, not only from Zelensky! And Brandenburg for the draft preamble compromise. The dangerous fissures run deep, also among leftists. New hopes have been kindled, but unless big changes occur in many capitals and with some leading figures, I fear the analogous Mother Goose line could be, all too tragically, “Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after!”