A break from America -- German Election 2005

[beachmom]

I just got back from Europe, and there is a big election coming up in September for Chancellor and the Bundestag in Germany, so I thought you would all be interested in some fun facts. I've decided to focus as much as I can on this election, since it's just SO darn depressing in America -- between the Iraq War and John Roberts, I just can't watch anymore, so let's focus on another country:

German candidates:

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder -- Social Democrat (SPD) -- the more progressive, labor oriented party currently ruling in coalition with the Green Party
Angela Merkel -- Christian Democrat (CDU)-- the more conservative party which if they get over 50% along with their Bavarian sister party the CSU and the entrepeneurial, pro-business FDP would mean Germany would have its first female chancellor

Big Issues: the economy, the economy, AND the economy. 12% unemployment eclipses terrorists every time. Schroeder is most likely doomed because it was under his watch that such disastrous economic conditions have occurred.

There were already signs all over the place on the street, but it's funny because it shows a picture of the person running for office. There also were large signs with big slogans. One of the SPD's signs caught my eye -- roughly translated, it said "We have the courage to stand for peace. But what about the other party?" This refers to the fact that Merkel backed the Iraq War in 2003. In case you don't know, Schroeder won re-election in 2002 by running against Bush!! All he talked about was how he would NEVER put German troops in Iraq under any circumstance. It was a NO WAR campaign and people overlooked the economic failings, and voted for him. Unfortunately, this is no longer a big issue in Germany -- the Iraq War is America's and Britain's war. Not theirs. It's the economy, stupid, and Schroeder has not delievered the goods.

Developments:

A new Left party has just formed to rebel against the SPD. It is a merger of the Communist party in the East with some leftish party in the West. It is stealing votes from both the CDU and the SPD, and if this continues, the election may have a stalemate result and a "grand coalition" of the SPD and CDU would have to be formed. The former East Germany has now become the "swing states" -- nobody knows how they're going to vote. This led to Stoiber, who is with Merkel, to say that it was unfair that the "frustrated" (referring to the East Germans) would be choosing the direction of the government, and that the folks in Bavaria were much smarter!!! (Okay, can you imagine Kerry standing up and saying it was completely unfair that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were essentially deciding the election when, in fact, the people of Massachusetts are much smarter. Imagine Fox News' reaction to such a remark) Schroeder took this gaffe and is running with it. But part of me thinks Stoiber, in an almost Republican fashion, calculated this remark to shore up the Bavarian base, and divide the country as it continues to be divided -- East vs. West, Blue vs. Red, the have nots vs. the haves. Like John Edwards' speech -- there literally are still "2 Germanies".

Bizarre politics: Merkel, the conservative, is running on raising taxes!!! Unlike here, in the Euro zone, no country is allowed to have a deficit of more than 3% of GDP. Germany is in the hole, so taxes will need to be raised. Oddly enough, even the conservative party is for the welfare programs in Germany -- they just think reforms need to be passed to help business. Unfortunately, Bush (the dim wit) has already CALLED Angela Merkel, and is all excited about having a chancellor who is an "Atlanticist", far friendlier to the U.S. I think Bush should shut the fuck up, if he wants Merkel to win, because despite all the different parties and opinions of the German people, Bush is universally despised. NOBODY likes him. But it's not as personal for them as it is for us. Mostly, they just laugh at him, and look at Americans with puzzlement for having re-elected him. I will say this, though -- I didn't witness anti-Americanism -- such reports of this in Europe are overdone.

I'm not German, but since I have family there, I do care about their fate. But if I had to vote there, I don't know who I would vote for! I think Schroeder has failed the country and needs to go, and that it would be great to have a female chancellor. I don't think moving a little more pro-business is a bad thing there, since they already have things like universal health care and good environmental laws. A move to the right in Germany is still WAY left to where America is. Oh yeah, and abortion is NOT an issue in Germany. It's legal with restrictions, LEGISLATED instead of decided in a court. My big problem with Merkel is her cosiness with Bush. But in many ways, this is only symbolic, since she would NEVER put German troops in Iraq. This would be political suicide.

So there you have it. No war in Germany (well, they are in Afghanistan and lost 2 troops a couple of months ago, but that, of course, is a war of necessity, not choice), but a terrible economy and a rapidly aging population. Remember the good old days, when it was only about the economy, stupid? Well, that's German politics for you in 2005. One last note -- there is NO political advertising on TV -- no scary music, no attack ads. Just the issues, folks.

[Mass]

1. Happy to see that Bush is supporting Merkel openly

The last thing Germany needs is her to win.

Dont judge Germany with American eyes. This would be very deceptive. Sure Germany is way to the left of the USA, this does not mean they should move to the right. Germany has his own traditions.

Germany is one of the most advanced European countries when it comes to social programs and one of the objectives Merkel has is to cut these services.

I would disagree that Schroeder has failed. Absorbing East Germany would be about the same thing than absorbing Mexico. Germany has suffered since Kohl (from Merkel's party) has insisted in doing that too quickly, and Schroeder is doing the best he can in these circumstances. He may be suffering from being too long in power, but it would still be a lot better for all if the SPD wins.

[karynnj]

2. Thank you for posting this

Wouldn't it be great if this was our situation? Especially the lack of political ads. Is anyone else concerned that we have already reached the point where it's as much a war of the ad teams as of the candidates, their backgrounds, personalities and issues.

I wonder if having political advertising has the effect of driving the discussion to advertising type slogans rather than issues. Imagine last year without attack ads or ads to "define" the candidate - produced by the candidate and his opponents. What you would see would be the two candidates, still filtered through the media, having to personally define themselves. Bush would have an advantage because he would have started out already better known with a near 60% personal approval rate.

Without ads endlessly repeating Kerry's annoyed shorthand summary of his positions on the military spending bill from a rally where he had already explained the two votes in great detail, could the Republicans have had any success with the flip flop issue? The SBVT would likely still have had their book and have been on talk shows, but after they were found to have lied repeatedly, could they have had the impact they did with their millions of commercials.

[Mass]

3. I agree

Bush would have an advantage because he would have started out already better known with a near 60% personal approval rate.

But dont forget one of the main difference between the States and most European countries is that the opposition has a leader that is well known to most people in the country. There are no lengthy primaries like there are in this country and it is fairly current that somebody runs in several elections. This way, they build their name recognition.

It is amazing that this is something that the US dont get. A candidate who has been beaten (if it was not a catastrophy) is going to run again with his party's support. In France, the two last presidents (Mitterrand and Chirac) had lost twice before they were elected, and nobody even thought of labelling them damaged goods.

[karynnj]

4. I think after 2000, Gore would have had a really good chance to do this.

because he would have had the backing of much of the party. He would have been criticised by the Republicans as being divisive, but he was criticised even in his absence. Not having a job, could have been dealt with by creating a policy role with staff in the DNC (or elsewhere). Kerry's attempt to be a shadow president is in parallel to his work in the Senate,and although the Senate does give him a forum, it wouldn't be necessary. It is unfortunate that Gore didn't become a shadow president, beacause it would be a valuable precident, even if he opted not to run. If someone is qualified and skilled enough to become the nominee, they should be more than adequate as more spokesman for the party.

Kerry should get credit for putting himself in this role - especally as he has been seen to be right on so many 2004 issues. But, Kerry, who had a tougher race against a sitting wartime president, is given less support by the party than Gore was. Part of this may be the Clinton factor. Letting Kerry be the shadow president would prevent the restoration of the Clintons - who are still the darlings of some elements of the Democratic party. I think this is also why we are hearing, repeated as fact, how bad Kerry's campaign was. It might also be that on the biggest issue, Kerry seems to have very different goals than the Clintons. (It should be interesting as time goes on to see if some of the B. Clinton fans begin to realize they prefer Kerry's position (or something to the left of it.)

[beachmom]

5. Interesting points, Mass

I look at an economy as a delicate balance between business, workers, and government. In the U.S. everything is for big business who gets all the benefits and passes none of them on to the workers, or even to the government in the form of tax revenue. In Germany, I think it's too tilted toward the workers, who are expensive and inflexible, to the point where businesses have left or don't create new jobs which means less people working and less taxes going to the government. Now I could be dead wrong, and you are right to point out the horrible transition of merging East and West Germany, BUT . . . France has unemployment of 10% and slow growth, too, and they had no East Germany to absorb. You are right that Germany is highly advanced in SOME areas, notably, environmentally friendly, excellent public transportation, universal health coverage, great benefits to Moms who have children, and a generous pension system. But their economy is anemic, and the question is why? I talked to one German who thinks it's something as simple as the fact that Germans are cheap -- they have a 10% savings rate, whereas Americans save . . . 0%, and spend everything on products that keep the economy chugging along. We also have a housing boom, whereas Germany's house market has gone down or stagnated for a decade. But you act like Angela Merkel is George Bush, and that is simply not the case. First, she would NEVER talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus and second, she would NEVER dismantle all of the popular government programs (like privatize social security). But I was there, talked to the people, watched programs on TV. People are VERY pessimistic about the future, and the country is full of people living on the dole who CAN work, which I think is very unhealthy for one's mental state of mind. What has Schroeder done for them other than plunge the country further into debt, AND cut benefits? He's been in charge for TEN years. How many more years should the Germans give him before they "turn the corner" (ha, ha!). But they are also unbelievably cynical. I mean, my husband said there was no real choice in election 2004 in the U.S. -- just two rich guys (obviously, I STRONGLY disagree on that count). But on this election, my in-laws have no idea who they'll vote for, and one is already planning on throwing her vote away on a tiny party which has no prayer of getting one seat in the Bundestag (kind of like voting the Green party in 2004). So why you and I discuss the merits of the candidates with passion, many Germans think it doesn't matter WHO you vote for -- nothing will get better.

But nothing I'm saying here is in stone. I really don't know and if I was a German, I would definitely be one of those "swing voters" we were so annoyed by in 2004. But as an American, I want Schroeder, because I don't want Bush getting any more friends in Europe, but if that's at the expense of the German economy, then I do hope for better for my in-laws and friends in Germany. Now you see my dilemma with this election. Hmmmm . . . I wonder what JK thinks of this election. I would be interested to know.

[Kellanved]

6. I'd disagree on the "disastrous economic conditions have occurred" count

He failed to bring unemployment down; it hasn't changed much in the past years (the way to count it was changed, though).
The problem with the German economy is that it's export based. For ten years, it has been an objective to keep domestic demand low, in an attempt to synchronize with the other EU countries. The funny thing is, there are the first signs that it actually worked - there is a real chance that there is actually a benefit of the past reforms to be claimed by whoever wins the election.

[TayTay]

7. Hey, welcome to the Kerry Group

Kellanved! Pleased to met ya!

:hi:

[beachmom]

8. Hi Kellanved

As I said before, I still have much to learn, but Schroeder is definitely not popular with the people who I have met in Germany. Even the Social Dem guy I know is going to vote the new Left Party. Interesting point about the export business, which makes sense. The Germans are so cheap, even the rich ones, it drives me crazy. They have to sell their products to the spendthrifts like us! I have Deutsche Welle TV on my satellite in English (I can get by in German, but the news is too fast with too many big words so it's nice to get it in English), so I am trying to learn as much as I can. Any additional insights from someone as knowledgeable as you is definitely welcome! Oh yes, and welcome to the JK forum!

[Kellanved]

9. Hi beachmom

Yup, being a scrooge is somewhat accepted in Germany - one might say that the Scots are beginners by comparison. There is funny statistic: per capita, among all industrialized nations, Germans spend most on kitchen appliances and least on groceries. Having quality equipment is considered to be more important than having quality ingredients.

And, judging from the polls, the same stance seems to apply for the ingredients for the next Federal cabinet. The team the conservatives are trying to sell is the most laughable excuse I've ever seen - they can't keep the peace before the election. And Merkel - as much as I'd like to see a woman becoming Chancellor- she's just not up to the job.

Well, Schröder got big with the media - now he is about to become the first post-reunification Chancellor ousted by a media campaign.
The "left" party is a good example: it's anything but left, yet it got media attention far beyond the understandable. It offers nothing, no solutions, no plan - just old failed politicians, failed concepts, used-up ideas - I don't understand the appeal.

We'll see how it turns out, I haven't yet given up on the Social Democrats. Most accusations are ill-founded, many just plain wrong.

:hi:

I would have liked to see JK returning to Berlin - as President.

[karynnj]

10. Hi Kellanved

Your comments are great - Are you German? It sounds like you are, but if so your English is amazing.

I think all of us here would have loved to have seen Kerry anywhere and everywhere - as President.

Welcome!

[beachmom]

11. Interesting insights, but I beg to differ on food in Germany

The food there is SO much better than America. The bakeries alone are to die for. Just because they spend less on groceries doesn't mean they eat lesser for it. All you need in your house is a sack of potatoes, and my mother-in-law can throw together a tasty feast which I somehow can't duplicate. Germany is interesting because they went from nothing to everything so quickly. Iraq should pray to have as good fortune as Germany post-war. My mother-in-law is a baby boomer, who based on stories she has told me, seems to have grown up in the 1800s, and now lives in one of the richest nations in the world in the 21st century. Oh yes, and they do have snazzy, albeit small, kitchens!

[Kellanved]

12. heh, well

That is indeed true. The current grandparent/great-grandparent generation grew up in bitter poverty. Throwing away food? Spending 10 cent more? out of question. It is a treat that translated to a certain degree to later generations.
The small kitchens with tiny fridges and small ovens are another thing - I don't know where that came from. I guess the reason is that the normal day-to-day fare was soup - no need for anything big.

And yes, bakeries are a redeeming factor. But my main reference points about the quality of the food are mainly France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands the situation is not totally unlike in German supermarkets, but the dairy products and the asia sections do raise them well above the German level.
And well, French supermarkets are just a dream. Huge, all is fresh, all is top-notch quality. To get the same quality in Germany, one has to drive to a Deli-Supermarket (most Germans are unaware of their existence). And the selection can't be found at all.

American supermarkets, well- I can't really say. The size sure is impressive, but they never were as fascinating to me as the French ones.