Relevant context: Dobrindt was in favour of banning the Left party and was in favour of juristically going after the Last Generation.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
59 points (96.8% liked)
Europe
5793 readers
714 users here now
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
They'll want to form a coalition with the Nazis in 2029, just like last time, so obviously they don't want to ban them. Fucking "conservatives".
Genuine question: what/who do you base that assumption on?
So far, those most thinking about such a coalition seem to be those that aren't in the Union.
Merz hat gone from "firewall" over "ah, let's not fuss over state level cooperation" to literally inviting them to help him win a vote against the old federal government in a time span of less than 4 years. CDU/CSU representatives didn't abandon him over this, so I have to assume they are ok with it.
Spahn (new conservative faction leader, one of the most powerful positions in the next parliament) publicly calls to treat them like any other opposition party (that would logically include being open to a coalition).
Many other prominent conservative figures are actively working to adopt and normalize AfD positions in their policies, which is how the public gets prepared to be more open to the idea.
You have to actively want to not see it to be able to ignore the writing on the wall. They absolutely will do it as soon as it appears beneficial to them.
And don't forget that CDU/CSU both have deep ties to the Republicans and they to this day have those connections
Merz is power-hungry and wanted to become chancellor pretty bad. Also, I'd agree that there is too much spinelessness in the party when push comes to shove (but also in the SPD, as can be seen in the 'cautious' comments concerning a ban of the AfD).
Yet, I don't really see them wanting to form a coalition with the Nazis in 2029 and concerning Merz, it is one of the very few things I actually believe him that he personally won't form a coalition with the AfD. They also don't want to burn themselves in a failed attempt to ban the party, or, in the Unions case, don't want backlash from the voters they want to attract back from the AfD. But I honestly wouldn't say they are keen to cooperate with the AfD, especially as long as it is possible to achieve their goals with a partner as malleable as the SPD. The reasons of them not wanting to ban the party are primarily fears of accountability and backlash, not strategic ones.
But I honestly wouldn't say they are keen to cooperate with the AfD, especially as long as it is possible to achieve their goals with a partner as malleable as the SPD.
That's the key condition. As soon as other partners aren't willing to give them what they want, they will not hesitate. They have literally just shown us that they won't. Those votes were a power play by Merz to signal to the SPD they shouldn't be too confident in their position as the only possible partner. That only makes sense if he's willing to go through with it.
Of course they are telling the public now that they won't do it. About three years ago Merz told us anybody who cooperated with the Nazis in the slightest would be excluded from the party the next day. I may have missed all the exclusions, but actually I think you cannot trust one word this man says.
Also it's not even a sure thing that Merz will be in charge for the next election. The "first row" in the CDU took a big step back when it came to posts in the new government, possibly because they are gambling it won't make it for the full 4 years. And if it doesn't, it'll be Spahn or one of the other extremists next.
Last time the Nazis came into power the conservatives acted in the same way and they will do it again. It's a property of conservatism, not of the individual actors. You can see that in other nations, the USA are only the most recent example. Conservatives will help anybody to power as long as it means they can avoid taxing the rich.
Thatโs the key condition. As soon as other partners arenโt willing to give them what they want, they will not hesitate.
But wouldn't that make the AfD their second best option at best? The way you state it makes it seem as though they are actually poised to form a coalition with them, i.e. actually go for them as their prime partner in a coalition. I'd say they'd always try to form a coalition first with red, green and/or yellow.
Also, as stated, I don't see any hard-bitten aspirations to form a coalition with them later as the key driver in their reluctance to ban the AfD, but rather the fear of failure. Wouldn't you agree?
Thanks to AFD and ALL other extreme right wing parties in european countries, our hard-earned freedom will be gone in the future, thanks a lot douchebags ๐ and instead of working on things that actually matter we have to worry about extremist parties ... Thanks for ruining our precious time, money, energy and freedom douchebags ๐๐
AfD takes money from the Kremlin and they are not interested in "out governing"anyone, but this man in the actual government is eager to frame them as loyal opposition.
"I am very sceptical about this," Dobrindt told broadcaster ZDF on Sunday after talk of a possible ban dominated German media since Friday. "I don't believe that we can just ban the AfD. Instead we need to outgovern them."
"In truth, this plays into the hands of the AfD and their narrative that people no longer want to engage with them politically, but only legally. And I would not want to grant the AfD that satisfaction," Dobrindt said.
I hold Hanlon's razor to be one of the most important tools of making sense of the world. But I simply don't understand these Dobrindt quotes. They seem to be missing like 10 paragraphs of explanation or context. I'd truly like to at least make sense of them before I dismiss them. What does "outgovern" mean? What's so bad about not engaging with the AfD politically?
What does โoutgovernโ mean?
The same thing the established parties wanted to do with Hitler when they made him Chancellor in 1933.
The AfD isn't only here since yesterday. They have grown (read:festered) over the last 10 years of stagnant, conservative politics. The "middle" parties SPD and CDU have, instead of creating a clear separation, become closer and closer to the AfD and taken up their talking points. Mainly, but not only regarding migration politics as well as social security.
They had 10 (well, maybe 8) years to outgovern the AfD, stabilise and strengthen democracy and remove the basis for the social Angst that leads to hate of migrants. They have failed at that and still cling to the same narrative. And they are still making it worse and "outgoverning" the AfD is in this case, just taking over their "solutions".
Edit: I totally forgot the racism. Germany is institutionally racist, but noone wants to talk about it, it's a non-issue in the minds of many. So there is nothing to rectify. If you don't ask PoC.
Outgoverning them means nothing at all. It's an empty phrase that sounds good, many people would instinctively agree to, but no two of them interpret it the same way.
Of course they could have outgoverned AfD. They had 10 years for that. People are frustrated because they see their situation only getting worse with every year, and that's the soil fascism needs to grow. So the way to work against them is to implement policies that help people, not billionaires and corporations. Lower taxes for the lower classes, tax the rich, build affordable housing and invest in public transit. Keep cartels from price gouging on groceries.
But these are not the policies Dobrindt has in mind. when he says "outgovern AfD". And that's why conservatives will never be able to lower fascist vote counts by "outgoverning them".
A fun bit that I learned yesterday: In 2012, Dobrindt actually advocated outlawing Die Linke as a party. It's so weird how the strategy shifts in the face of actual fascists trying to take over compared to there being a leftist democratic party that is not actually doing all that well.
That's different. Die Linke might reduce his friends' profits.
The CxU's idea of "outgoverning" the AfD:
- Further limit infrastructure spending because limiting state debt must surely be the number one topic for everyone by a wide margin and everyone must want to see it achieved at all costs.
- Take a harder stance on immigrants, asylum seekers, and other foreign-looking people because adopting AfD policies must surely lead to their voters bleeding over.
- Keep talking about how the intended means of defending the country against extremist parties are not valid means of defending the country against extremist parties.
- Continue fully collaborating on the regional level.
What does "outgovern" mean?
It's always the same story... Essentially those people say that all you need to do is govern better than them. Which is a stupid take because for that to work, they'd have to be in power first - vs you don't want fascists to get power just to prove your point of them not doing it well. You're not going to get that power back.
What's so bad about not engaging with the AfD politically?
~~One thing doesn't have anything to do with the other. There are laws in Germany that make it very clear where you're allowed to be on the political spectrum. If you're outside of that range, your party is supposed to be dissolved, end of story. Imho, they are way beyond what is allowed, so the constitutional court should decide if they should be allowed to keep working. It's just not a political question, it's a legal question. So it should be answered in courts, not in the parliament.~~
~~On another note, I even think that engaging with them politically won't lead anywhere except more publicity for them. And that's not because they're so good at debating but because they're always acting in bad faith. Their goal isn't to fix the system but to destroy it, so every time you give them airtime they'll use that to lure more frustrated people into their hands, just to start using the channels the party owns to get more information, opening themselves up misinformation and lies. It's not an accident that that party uses social media and their own channels to spread their point of view while ignoring or oppressing established media wherever they can. This whole premise turns engagement with them into an argument you can't win, though. If you're defending any part of this system, you're their enemy and they won't use a debate to engage with you but simply to use you as a means to communicate their own goal of tearing it all down. They are not interested in compromise, so unless you agree with their idea of destroying this system as we know it, there's no good outcome in any engagement with them.~~
God, I missed your "not"... I fucking wrote that on mobile. ๐