11 ms·

6 charts to help Americans understand the upcoming German elections

37 points by digitalime 9y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
The language used to describe AfD is strikingly similar to the one used to describe Trump supporters prior to the elections. The truth is, the influx of immigrants is a real problem in Germany, although in some places is felt more than in others. Normal people turn to AfD for help, not because they're aggressive or hateful. It's difficult to even have a civilized discussion about it without being labelled as "racist" or "extreme right-wing". (Fortunately, the label "Nazi" is rarely used, it's more American domain these days.)
- peteretep 9y ago
  > The truth is, the influx of immigrants > is a real problem in Germany, although > in some places is felt more than in others My belief, from what I've read, is that in most countries anti-immigrant sentiment correlates with area where there are currently few immigrants. I wonder if that's the same case in Germany?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    It's more complex than that. Also, the media tend to concentrate on cases like Maria Ladenburger that are statically negligible while ignoring long-term threats that are more or less a taboo topic.
  - pluma 9y ago
    This seems to be the case. Anti-immigrant parties are more popular in sparsely populated areas that are mostly "ethnically German". This happens to also show up as an East/West divide for obvious reasons.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Ideology_and_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Ideolo... > For example, Petry, who led the moderate wing of the party, said that Germany should reclaim the German word "Volk" from its Nazi connotations, while Höcke, who is an example of the more right-wing views, regularly speaks of the "Fatherland" and "Volk", and has said that Germany should make a "180 degree" turn with regard to its sense of national pride. You know, they do sound kinda "racist" and "extreme right-wing" from their own words. > The party has a platform of climate change denial And also very, very stupid.
  - VladTheImplier 9y ago
    I urge you to read the "Wahlprogramm" with Google translate, the legal text that defines what a party stands for in this election, it's ~70 pages for each party, but there is a summary for every topic. http://www.bundestagswahl-bw.de/wahlprogramme_btwahl2017.html http://www.bundestagswahl-bw.de/wahlprogramme_btwahl2017.htm... It's not much different from what the other parties aim to do. The only real one being, that the AFD wants a hard cap on immigration. If you read media covering the German election you never find them having the, you know, legally binding document of their goals. Because in reality everything is much more tame and realistic. The assaults against parties always happen because someone said something, never do they source what actually is defined by the party. Höcke said some goddamn stupid shit, that you will barely find anyone agreeing. But his words alone were enough for all the opponents to tarnish AFD's name and it became the Nazi party forever. Last week the AFD split because of that into a new "Alternative Center" just because of that. I won't vote for them, but how is the want to get blacklisted words like "Volk = People" and "Vaterland = Fatherland" to be reclaimed and used freely again that evil? Nobody in Germany can defend their historic achievements, because their ancestors were criminals. The AFD whishes to reverse that. The climate change part is a thing that the AFD fiercly debated for long inside their own walls, but they never claimed to deny that either. The official statement, is that the blind deactivation of Nuclear energy can lead to skyrocketing electricity prices, where they don't question climate change itself, but the human component in it. By their words, it is not clear whether man had influence or not and to act on something that is not set in stone is foolish. I don't agree with them on that or will vote for them, but I must defend the them on simply calling them stupid and racist, because they are not, or the words of one or two people are weight more than a legally binding election plan.
- tajen 9y ago
  Yes. No party proposes a reduction of massive Muslim immigration, except this one. The fact that everyone categorizes anything that discusses immigration as "extreme-right" or "alt-right" doesn't help. Worse, it doesn't help diagnosing: I'm yet to see a good explanation by Democrats of why Trump got 62m votes (whether that's the majority or not isn't relevant, it's still 62m votes for a spoiled child), beyond "They're stupid racist biggots". With such a bad diagnsis, we're bound to see those 62m votes again and again. In USA, Trump's supporter Milo Yiannopoulos endlessly makes fun of this situation. His political speeches are 10% controversy (against left) but 90% about showing how much the left mischaracterizes the right's ideas and how much he gets censorship "because words hurt someone's feelings". I discovered him when he interviewed James Damore, which is a pretty good demonstration of leftist behaviors. Wrong analysis of AfD's progression may make them take the lead: - Citizen just don't want to become the world capital of rape, like Sweden became, no matter how immigration is forced onto them, whether it's in London (are there still British people in London?), France of Germany. - People will vote the non-politically correct choice (Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, AfD) as long as main parties don't acknowledge the problem. - We won't hear about them while Social Justice Warriors keep pushing them outside of Twitter, conferences and companies. To better understand today's political evolution, a good place to start a social diagnostic is unfortunately at the sidelines of mainstream media: 9Gag's #Politics channel and Milo Yiannopoulos...
  - peteretep 9y ago
    > like Sweden became This appears to be an alternative fact, please don't post it again. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786
    - vim_wannabe 9y ago
      So not world capital, but the EU capital. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0XJP4OHTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0XJP4OHTE
      - peteretep 9y ago
        You didn't read the link, and you've linked to a YouTube video of some guy opining into a camera as some kind of primary source. Awesome.
- pluma 9y ago
  Many Nazis support the AfD, not every AfD supporter is a Nazi. Some people are just idiots. And a not-so-insignificant amount of people are plain "protest voters" who vote for the most unacceptable party the media talks about (before AfD this was the NPD) to "stick it to the man". I watched most of the federal convention of the AfD and the party basically unifies a number of different political interest groups, including but not limited to literal Nazis. Almost all of these groups are right-wing and almost all of them are nationalist or ethno-nationalist. The moderates are actually almost palatable (their main argument always boils down to "but think of the children") but the party tries very hard to pretend there is no diversity of opinion among its members. FWIW, the aforementioned moderates are often extremely "conservative" (i.e. queers are destroying society and corrupting our children, gay men are pedophiles, sex education should be abstinence only, etc). There's also a disturbing amount of support for fringe conspiracy theories (chemtrails, holocaust denialism, sovereign citizens aka "Reichsbürger", etc). Saying "but some of the things some of them say are true" is missing the point. You can't take the AfD seriously because it's a hot mess that is heavily influenced by ideologies that are bordering on being anti-constitutional. It's like attempting to justify bringing Adolf Hitler into a conversation about healthcare because he's a vegetarian. Yes, vegetarianism might have a place in that discussion, but nobody would expect that to be particularly helpful because he'll likely derail the conversation to say something awful about Jews. The AfD's official position on so many things is so far off the mark you can't cooperate with them on any detail without suffering their taint on everything else. You can have reasoned discussions about immigration (e.g. how we actually handle immigration has resulted in plenty of problems on all sides) but you can not base it on a stance that is inherently anti-constitutional.
  - thg 9y ago
    The AfD is a rebranding effort of the NPD to get rid of their direct Nazi / Hitler / WW2 past. The sad thing is that it appears to be working, albeit only marginally for now.
    - pluma 9y ago
      That's not really true. The NPD is more supportive of the lower class. Its politics (nationalism and xenophobia aside) tend to favor the poor, the unemployed and the wage slaves. The AfD is much more bourgeois. Despite its populist rhetoric its social promises actually tend to focus on working families and traditional "values". It's the CDU to the NPD's Left.
- jackblack8989 9y ago
  I don't agree with what you're saying, hence I have to call you a Nazi, Nazi
- vacri 9y ago
  It's a false equivalency, comparing Trump supporters to similar in other countries. The AfD gets 5% of the vote. Trump got nearly 50% of the vote. Every population has its extremist idiots, but for nearly 50% of voters to willingly cast their vote for such an obscenely obvious conman? No, the AfD situation is nothing like Trump - there is no danger of AfD 'running the show'.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pluma 9y ago
    It's improbable that the AfD will get enough votes to become a part of the government but I don't find it at all unlikely that they'll perform better than the polls suggest, especially considering the recent failures of polls in other countries. The AfD is much more socially acceptable than the NPD ever was. It's largely seen as a "protest party" and the general consensus that they have no chance of being part of any government coalition only helps support that.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Much of the difference is in electoral systems, and the same around ten percent that led to Trump could be necessary for a coalition and run much more of the show than they should.
- erispoe 9y ago
  And what problems are they exactly? Are they making prior residents worse off? Or are we talking "cultural danger"? There is no evidence of the former. In fact, a large part of why Germany has taken so many immigrants compared to other european countries is that the german workforce is stretched thin and needed an influx of young workers. Plus Germany has more infrastructure in place to integrate foreign population. If we're talking the latter, then that's irrational fear.
suckerburg 9y ago
Is this not applicable to non-Americans then? Cause they exist too.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  It's heavy on the references to American politics, so not really?
vacri 9y ago
Curious that in the geographical support charts, The Left is on the right :)
- pluma 9y ago
  The Left was the result of a merger with the PDS, which was the successor to the socialist party of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic). Fun fact: There's a commonly held misbelief that the AfD is popular in the East because it's the East but it seems to actually correlate more strongly with lack of ethnic/cultural diversity and low population density.
pluma 9y ago
I'm not sure what the RILE score is but that chart is worthless if you want to understand party alignment. Because Germany doesn't have a two party system, putting the parties on a simple one-dimensional chart doesn't tell you much. For example, the Greens are one of the most "socially progressive" parties (think immigration, LGBT, gender theory, feminism) but their positions on social welfare / workers' rights are fairly conservative compared to The Left (which in turn is extremely "pro-worker" to the point of bordering on anti-capitalist but doesn't place as much emphasis on LGBT issues). The Left is also much more strongly anti-war. The Greens also (obviously) place a lot of importance on ecological issues and renewable energy (which in Germany always means anti-nuclear). The CDU has indeed shifted towards the left under Merkel but the SPD has also previously shifted strongly towards the right under Schröder. In fact the left wing of the SPD split off (that's the WASG mentioned in the footnote) and joined the Left, leaving both major parties left and right of the center. The SPD's campaigning this time is a bit more "left populist" than usual but that seems to be almost entirely strategic (to steer protest voters away from the AfD by offering a "real alternative"). The FDP is generally considered the most "employer-friendly" party and has a history of leaning towards neoliberal ("privatise everything") but has recently marketed itself as more centrist libertarian. I find it very odd to see both the FDP and CDU described as more conservative than the US Democrats, as well as seeing the FDP described as more conservative than the CDU. The CDU is probably most tolerant of getting involved in wars and only the Left and Greens take a strong stance against weapons exports but none of them are anywhere near as militarist as the US Democrats (or Republicans). None of the parties could honestly be described as "tough on crime" either. If anything the CDU can be defined as generally being strongly in favour of the status quo. If Merkel loses (which most likely also means she'll leave CDU politics), the CDU will have an identity crisis. Merkel's "left-leaning" course alienated many right-wing voters, the SPD has become indistinguishable in many aspects thus competing for the centrist voters. The CDU would be expected to snap back to a slightly more conservative, more right wing position but Merkel practically eliminated all possible leadership candidates. Von der Leyen will not be the next Merkel, but all other public figures are either gone already or on their way out. We're almost guaranteed to end up with another coalition government. It will likely be led by Merkel's CDU. I think we'll also see the AfD reach a two digit number -- I hope for less than that, but less than 5% (which is the minimum for getting any seats) seems unlikely.
erikb 9y ago
A few points from a German: It is not true that the Left is more liberal. They are more socialist, which is simply not listed in these article's diagrams. A strong socialist pariticipation in Germany results from a huge part of it being under Soviet control for a few decades. It is also not true that neither top party has aimed at the social system. Both actually do try to minimize it. But they frame it into pro-social-system-wording because otherwise the people would start to fight them. In terms of climate change we actually found a great way to make a profit from it. Since we are one of the high tech leaders in the world and climate save technologies are usually high tech, we can use that to gain bigger global market shares in many markets that were locked up previously. Why is 3000€ considered high income? Is that post-tax? Pretax it's less than what Germans would expect with a college degree or higher. I consider myself liberal, education, high tech focussed. But I would also agree that Islam is political and not just religious. Just look at its history. That statement alone doesn't mean one should fight Islam. The bad thing about hte AfD is that they want to fight Muslems. Educated people of course frown upon discriminating on such a simple fact.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > It is not true that the Left is more liberal. They are more socialist, which is simply not listed in these article's diagrams This is an important point which trying to ram non-US political parties into a US-based single left-right spectrum does not account for. Another important distinction which people miss is "Islam" (the religion) vs "Islamism" (its involvement in politics).
  - erikb 9y ago
    Yes, in Germany left means Socialist, right means Fascist, and the differentiation between conservatism and progressiveness is actually something you can find in each of the corners. I also believe that Germany is not the only country like that. E.g. I have just finished watching season 3 of the tv show Narcos and it seems to me as if in Colombia this distinction also exists and it is enforced even stronger, with the liberal power being in government, and both left socialist and right fascist parties being military forces on the outskirts (considering the ability to kill as a political power as well). I agree that there is a distinction between Islam and Islamism. However I wouldn't say one is political the other religious. In the same way we can't put German parties on a US spectrum, we can't put Islam on a Christian spectrum. For Islam politics and religion are not two separate topics. It's one topic. If there's a distinction for Muslims it is for other factors, which I sadly don't know however. (If a Muslim reads it feel free to educate me on that part. I'm certainly interested)
TeMPOraL 9y ago
What about the Pirate Party? I hoped I'd see Piratenpartei Deutschland in the elections...
- lithander 9y ago
  They had there chances and botched it.
- Semaphor 9y ago
  They essentially killed themselves. First, there was the step to have a stance on everything, which a, IIRC small but don't take my word for it, majority wanted and they lost the people who supported them for their core values. Added to that lots and lots of internal strife and they became irrelevant, sadly.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > What about the Pirate Party? I hoped I'd see Piratenpartei Deutschland in the elections... It is in the elections, cf. for example > https://www.merkur.de/politik/bundestagswahl-2017-diese-parteien-treten-an-zr-8383966.html https://www.merkur.de/politik/bundestagswahl-2017-diese-part...
- majewsky 9y ago
  They're technically competing, in the same way that dozens of small parties are technically competing. That ship has sailed. (Pun not intended.)
- erikb 9y ago
  I'd hope so too, but honestly they have lost a lot since 2013, and not just votes. Also actual political goals. And while the hopes for political seriousness and organisation quality are increasing, the actual implementation seems to stagnate.
readittwice 9y ago
I will probably get down-voted for that, but personally I do think that the AfD adds value to the democratic system in Germany. In my whole life I haven't experienced a single other topic that's so controversial and influential as the whole immigration/refugee-crisis. Merkel gets criticized a lot for her open-border policy, but actually in Germany her party is still the most-restrictive in this regard except for the AfD. You can see that e.g. in the current discussion where social democrats want to allow all refugees to bring their relatives to Germany (right now this is only possible for a part of them). Merkel first wants to see if the number of people is manageable for Germany and want's to make the decision later (so after the election ;). To show its importance even in 2017: In the yesterday's tv confrontation between Merkel and the social-democrats front runner, immigration was the first and longest discussed topic. I believe that even in a country with Germany's history, there has to be a party where people who disagree or are concerned with the recent decisions about immigration should be represented. You would do democracy a disfavor if you try to cut out the AfD or their voters from the public discourse. I know they have some politicians with quite extreme views which they haven't got rid of. And they will pay the price for that by getting a lot less votes. Maybe it's also since I am not a German and therefore don't follow german domestic policy as close as many Germans do. Personally I try to imagine the two leading parties in Austria having the same stance on immigration as in Germany. This would end in a disaster for them in the next election, which is shortly after the german election.
- lithander 9y ago
  I agree. The CDU became more and more liberal and conservative positions now get represented by a new party. It shows that the democracy is healthy even if I would never vote for them, personally.
- majewsky 9y ago
  > I do think that the AfD adds value to the democratic system in Germany. Agreed. I dislike them and their views just as much as the next leftist, but they represent the opinions of a (small but) significant share of the German populace, and these ought to be represented by parliament proportionally.
UncleSlacky 9y ago
This is probably a better way of visualizing the parties: https://politicalcompass.org/germany2017 https://politicalcompass.org/germany2017
Ryan001 9y ago
You may have heard rumblings about a populist party poised to gain power in Germany’s election on Sept. 24 — or maybe you just heard that there’s an election coming up. The party vote might seem strange — candidates usually belong to parties already, the way they do in the U.S. — but it exists to make sure the Bundestag reflects the party preferences of the overall electorate. To achieve the right proportions, the total number of representatives in the Bundestag can vary with each federal election, but it is always at least 598. Unless a single party wins a simple majority — which is rare — multiple parties will need to join forces to form a governing coalition that, collectively makes up at least 50 percent of the Bundestag.
emdubs 9y ago
631 representatives for ~82 million people vs. 535 representatives for ~323 million people in the US The arbitrary capping of the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members is one of the biggest issues I have with the structure of the US legislature.

37 points by digitalime 9y ago

The language used to describe AfD is strikingly similar to the one used to describe Trump supporters prior to the elections. The truth is, the influx of immigrants is a real problem in Germany, although in some places is felt more than in others. Normal people turn to AfD for help, not because they're aggressive or hateful. It's difficult to even have a civilized discussion about it without being labelled as "racist" or "extreme right-wing". (Fortunately, the label "Nazi" is rarely used, it's more American domain these days.)

peteretep 9y ago
> The truth is, the influx of immigrants > is a real problem in Germany, although > in some places is felt more than in others My belief, from what I've read, is that in most countries anti-immigrant sentiment correlates with area where there are currently few immigrants. I wonder if that's the same case in Germany?
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  It's more complex than that. Also, the media tend to concentrate on cases like Maria Ladenburger that are statically negligible while ignoring long-term threats that are more or less a taboo topic.
- pluma 9y ago
  This seems to be the case. Anti-immigrant parties are more popular in sparsely populated areas that are mostly "ethnically German". This happens to also show up as an East/West divide for obvious reasons.
zimpenfish 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Ideology_and_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Ideolo... > For example, Petry, who led the moderate wing of the party, said that Germany should reclaim the German word "Volk" from its Nazi connotations, while Höcke, who is an example of the more right-wing views, regularly speaks of the "Fatherland" and "Volk", and has said that Germany should make a "180 degree" turn with regard to its sense of national pride. You know, they do sound kinda "racist" and "extreme right-wing" from their own words. > The party has a platform of climate change denial And also very, very stupid.
- VladTheImplier 9y ago
  I urge you to read the "Wahlprogramm" with Google translate, the legal text that defines what a party stands for in this election, it's ~70 pages for each party, but there is a summary for every topic. http://www.bundestagswahl-bw.de/wahlprogramme_btwahl2017.html http://www.bundestagswahl-bw.de/wahlprogramme_btwahl2017.htm... It's not much different from what the other parties aim to do. The only real one being, that the AFD wants a hard cap on immigration. If you read media covering the German election you never find them having the, you know, legally binding document of their goals. Because in reality everything is much more tame and realistic. The assaults against parties always happen because someone said something, never do they source what actually is defined by the party. Höcke said some goddamn stupid shit, that you will barely find anyone agreeing. But his words alone were enough for all the opponents to tarnish AFD's name and it became the Nazi party forever. Last week the AFD split because of that into a new "Alternative Center" just because of that. I won't vote for them, but how is the want to get blacklisted words like "Volk = People" and "Vaterland = Fatherland" to be reclaimed and used freely again that evil? Nobody in Germany can defend their historic achievements, because their ancestors were criminals. The AFD whishes to reverse that. The climate change part is a thing that the AFD fiercly debated for long inside their own walls, but they never claimed to deny that either. The official statement, is that the blind deactivation of Nuclear energy can lead to skyrocketing electricity prices, where they don't question climate change itself, but the human component in it. By their words, it is not clear whether man had influence or not and to act on something that is not set in stone is foolish. I don't agree with them on that or will vote for them, but I must defend the them on simply calling them stupid and racist, because they are not, or the words of one or two people are weight more than a legally binding election plan.
tajen 9y ago
Yes. No party proposes a reduction of massive Muslim immigration, except this one. The fact that everyone categorizes anything that discusses immigration as "extreme-right" or "alt-right" doesn't help. Worse, it doesn't help diagnosing: I'm yet to see a good explanation by Democrats of why Trump got 62m votes (whether that's the majority or not isn't relevant, it's still 62m votes for a spoiled child), beyond "They're stupid racist biggots". With such a bad diagnsis, we're bound to see those 62m votes again and again. In USA, Trump's supporter Milo Yiannopoulos endlessly makes fun of this situation. His political speeches are 10% controversy (against left) but 90% about showing how much the left mischaracterizes the right's ideas and how much he gets censorship "because words hurt someone's feelings". I discovered him when he interviewed James Damore, which is a pretty good demonstration of leftist behaviors. Wrong analysis of AfD's progression may make them take the lead: - Citizen just don't want to become the world capital of rape, like Sweden became, no matter how immigration is forced onto them, whether it's in London (are there still British people in London?), France of Germany. - People will vote the non-politically correct choice (Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, AfD) as long as main parties don't acknowledge the problem. - We won't hear about them while Social Justice Warriors keep pushing them outside of Twitter, conferences and companies. To better understand today's political evolution, a good place to start a social diagnostic is unfortunately at the sidelines of mainstream media: 9Gag's #Politics channel and Milo Yiannopoulos...
- peteretep 9y ago
  > like Sweden became This appears to be an alternative fact, please don't post it again. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786
  - vim_wannabe 9y ago
    So not world capital, but the EU capital. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0XJP4OHTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0XJP4OHTE
    - peteretep 9y ago
      You didn't read the link, and you've linked to a YouTube video of some guy opining into a camera as some kind of primary source. Awesome.
pluma 9y ago
Many Nazis support the AfD, not every AfD supporter is a Nazi. Some people are just idiots. And a not-so-insignificant amount of people are plain "protest voters" who vote for the most unacceptable party the media talks about (before AfD this was the NPD) to "stick it to the man". I watched most of the federal convention of the AfD and the party basically unifies a number of different political interest groups, including but not limited to literal Nazis. Almost all of these groups are right-wing and almost all of them are nationalist or ethno-nationalist. The moderates are actually almost palatable (their main argument always boils down to "but think of the children") but the party tries very hard to pretend there is no diversity of opinion among its members. FWIW, the aforementioned moderates are often extremely "conservative" (i.e. queers are destroying society and corrupting our children, gay men are pedophiles, sex education should be abstinence only, etc). There's also a disturbing amount of support for fringe conspiracy theories (chemtrails, holocaust denialism, sovereign citizens aka "Reichsbürger", etc). Saying "but some of the things some of them say are true" is missing the point. You can't take the AfD seriously because it's a hot mess that is heavily influenced by ideologies that are bordering on being anti-constitutional. It's like attempting to justify bringing Adolf Hitler into a conversation about healthcare because he's a vegetarian. Yes, vegetarianism might have a place in that discussion, but nobody would expect that to be particularly helpful because he'll likely derail the conversation to say something awful about Jews. The AfD's official position on so many things is so far off the mark you can't cooperate with them on any detail without suffering their taint on everything else. You can have reasoned discussions about immigration (e.g. how we actually handle immigration has resulted in plenty of problems on all sides) but you can not base it on a stance that is inherently anti-constitutional.
- thg 9y ago
  The AfD is a rebranding effort of the NPD to get rid of their direct Nazi / Hitler / WW2 past. The sad thing is that it appears to be working, albeit only marginally for now.
  - pluma 9y ago
    That's not really true. The NPD is more supportive of the lower class. Its politics (nationalism and xenophobia aside) tend to favor the poor, the unemployed and the wage slaves. The AfD is much more bourgeois. Despite its populist rhetoric its social promises actually tend to focus on working families and traditional "values". It's the CDU to the NPD's Left.
jackblack8989 9y ago
I don't agree with what you're saying, hence I have to call you a Nazi, Nazi
vacri 9y ago
It's a false equivalency, comparing Trump supporters to similar in other countries. The AfD gets 5% of the vote. Trump got nearly 50% of the vote. Every population has its extremist idiots, but for nearly 50% of voters to willingly cast their vote for such an obscenely obvious conman? No, the AfD situation is nothing like Trump - there is no danger of AfD 'running the show'.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pluma 9y ago
  It's improbable that the AfD will get enough votes to become a part of the government but I don't find it at all unlikely that they'll perform better than the polls suggest, especially considering the recent failures of polls in other countries. The AfD is much more socially acceptable than the NPD ever was. It's largely seen as a "protest party" and the general consensus that they have no chance of being part of any government coalition only helps support that.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Much of the difference is in electoral systems, and the same around ten percent that led to Trump could be necessary for a coalition and run much more of the show than they should.
erispoe 9y ago
And what problems are they exactly? Are they making prior residents worse off? Or are we talking "cultural danger"? There is no evidence of the former. In fact, a large part of why Germany has taken so many immigrants compared to other european countries is that the german workforce is stretched thin and needed an influx of young workers. Plus Germany has more infrastructure in place to integrate foreign population. If we're talking the latter, then that's irrational fear.

suckerburg 9y ago

Is this not applicable to non-Americans then? Cause they exist too.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
It's heavy on the references to American politics, so not really?

vacri 9y ago

Curious that in the geographical support charts, The Left is on the right :)

pluma 9y ago
The Left was the result of a merger with the PDS, which was the successor to the socialist party of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic). Fun fact: There's a commonly held misbelief that the AfD is popular in the East because it's the East but it seems to actually correlate more strongly with lack of ethnic/cultural diversity and low population density.

pluma 9y ago

I'm not sure what the RILE score is but that chart is worthless if you want to understand party alignment. Because Germany doesn't have a two party system, putting the parties on a simple one-dimensional chart doesn't tell you much. For example, the Greens are one of the most "socially progressive" parties (think immigration, LGBT, gender theory, feminism) but their positions on social welfare / workers' rights are fairly conservative compared to The Left (which in turn is extremely "pro-worker" to the point of bordering on anti-capitalist but doesn't place as much emphasis on LGBT issues). The Left is also much more strongly anti-war. The Greens also (obviously) place a lot of importance on ecological issues and renewable energy (which in Germany always means anti-nuclear). The CDU has indeed shifted towards the left under Merkel but the SPD has also previously shifted strongly towards the right under Schröder. In fact the left wing of the SPD split off (that's the WASG mentioned in the footnote) and joined the Left, leaving both major parties left and right of the center. The SPD's campaigning this time is a bit more "left populist" than usual but that seems to be almost entirely strategic (to steer protest voters away from the AfD by offering a "real alternative"). The FDP is generally considered the most "employer-friendly" party and has a history of leaning towards neoliberal ("privatise everything") but has recently marketed itself as more centrist libertarian. I find it very odd to see both the FDP and CDU described as more conservative than the US Democrats, as well as seeing the FDP described as more conservative than the CDU. The CDU is probably most tolerant of getting involved in wars and only the Left and Greens take a strong stance against weapons exports but none of them are anywhere near as militarist as the US Democrats (or Republicans). None of the parties could honestly be described as "tough on crime" either. If anything the CDU can be defined as generally being strongly in favour of the status quo. If Merkel loses (which most likely also means she'll leave CDU politics), the CDU will have an identity crisis. Merkel's "left-leaning" course alienated many right-wing voters, the SPD has become indistinguishable in many aspects thus competing for the centrist voters. The CDU would be expected to snap back to a slightly more conservative, more right wing position but Merkel practically eliminated all possible leadership candidates. Von der Leyen will not be the next Merkel, but all other public figures are either gone already or on their way out. We're almost guaranteed to end up with another coalition government. It will likely be led by Merkel's CDU. I think we'll also see the AfD reach a two digit number -- I hope for less than that, but less than 5% (which is the minimum for getting any seats) seems unlikely.

erikb 9y ago

A few points from a German: It is not true that the Left is more liberal. They are more socialist, which is simply not listed in these article's diagrams. A strong socialist pariticipation in Germany results from a huge part of it being under Soviet control for a few decades. It is also not true that neither top party has aimed at the social system. Both actually do try to minimize it. But they frame it into pro-social-system-wording because otherwise the people would start to fight them. In terms of climate change we actually found a great way to make a profit from it. Since we are one of the high tech leaders in the world and climate save technologies are usually high tech, we can use that to gain bigger global market shares in many markets that were locked up previously. Why is 3000€ considered high income? Is that post-tax? Pretax it's less than what Germans would expect with a college degree or higher. I consider myself liberal, education, high tech focussed. But I would also agree that Islam is political and not just religious. Just look at its history. That statement alone doesn't mean one should fight Islam. The bad thing about hte AfD is that they want to fight Muslems. Educated people of course frown upon discriminating on such a simple fact.

pjc50 9y ago
> It is not true that the Left is more liberal. They are more socialist, which is simply not listed in these article's diagrams This is an important point which trying to ram non-US political parties into a US-based single left-right spectrum does not account for. Another important distinction which people miss is "Islam" (the religion) vs "Islamism" (its involvement in politics).
- erikb 9y ago
  Yes, in Germany left means Socialist, right means Fascist, and the differentiation between conservatism and progressiveness is actually something you can find in each of the corners. I also believe that Germany is not the only country like that. E.g. I have just finished watching season 3 of the tv show Narcos and it seems to me as if in Colombia this distinction also exists and it is enforced even stronger, with the liberal power being in government, and both left socialist and right fascist parties being military forces on the outskirts (considering the ability to kill as a political power as well). I agree that there is a distinction between Islam and Islamism. However I wouldn't say one is political the other religious. In the same way we can't put German parties on a US spectrum, we can't put Islam on a Christian spectrum. For Islam politics and religion are not two separate topics. It's one topic. If there's a distinction for Muslims it is for other factors, which I sadly don't know however. (If a Muslim reads it feel free to educate me on that part. I'm certainly interested)

TeMPOraL 9y ago

What about the Pirate Party? I hoped I'd see Piratenpartei Deutschland in the elections...

lithander 9y ago
They had there chances and botched it.
Semaphor 9y ago
They essentially killed themselves. First, there was the step to have a stance on everything, which a, IIRC small but don't take my word for it, majority wanted and they lost the people who supported them for their core values. Added to that lots and lots of internal strife and they became irrelevant, sadly.
wolfgke 9y ago
> What about the Pirate Party? I hoped I'd see Piratenpartei Deutschland in the elections... It is in the elections, cf. for example > https://www.merkur.de/politik/bundestagswahl-2017-diese-parteien-treten-an-zr-8383966.html https://www.merkur.de/politik/bundestagswahl-2017-diese-part...
majewsky 9y ago
They're technically competing, in the same way that dozens of small parties are technically competing. That ship has sailed. (Pun not intended.)
erikb 9y ago
I'd hope so too, but honestly they have lost a lot since 2013, and not just votes. Also actual political goals. And while the hopes for political seriousness and organisation quality are increasing, the actual implementation seems to stagnate.

readittwice 9y ago

I will probably get down-voted for that, but personally I do think that the AfD adds value to the democratic system in Germany. In my whole life I haven't experienced a single other topic that's so controversial and influential as the whole immigration/refugee-crisis. Merkel gets criticized a lot for her open-border policy, but actually in Germany her party is still the most-restrictive in this regard except for the AfD. You can see that e.g. in the current discussion where social democrats want to allow all refugees to bring their relatives to Germany (right now this is only possible for a part of them). Merkel first wants to see if the number of people is manageable for Germany and want's to make the decision later (so after the election ;). To show its importance even in 2017: In the yesterday's tv confrontation between Merkel and the social-democrats front runner, immigration was the first and longest discussed topic. I believe that even in a country with Germany's history, there has to be a party where people who disagree or are concerned with the recent decisions about immigration should be represented. You would do democracy a disfavor if you try to cut out the AfD or their voters from the public discourse. I know they have some politicians with quite extreme views which they haven't got rid of. And they will pay the price for that by getting a lot less votes. Maybe it's also since I am not a German and therefore don't follow german domestic policy as close as many Germans do. Personally I try to imagine the two leading parties in Austria having the same stance on immigration as in Germany. This would end in a disaster for them in the next election, which is shortly after the german election.

lithander 9y ago
I agree. The CDU became more and more liberal and conservative positions now get represented by a new party. It shows that the democracy is healthy even if I would never vote for them, personally.
majewsky 9y ago
> I do think that the AfD adds value to the democratic system in Germany. Agreed. I dislike them and their views just as much as the next leftist, but they represent the opinions of a (small but) significant share of the German populace, and these ought to be represented by parliament proportionally.

UncleSlacky 9y ago

This is probably a better way of visualizing the parties: https://politicalcompass.org/germany2017 https://politicalcompass.org/germany2017

Ryan001 9y ago

You may have heard rumblings about a populist party poised to gain power in Germany’s election on Sept. 24 — or maybe you just heard that there’s an election coming up. The party vote might seem strange — candidates usually belong to parties already, the way they do in the U.S. — but it exists to make sure the Bundestag reflects the party preferences of the overall electorate. To achieve the right proportions, the total number of representatives in the Bundestag can vary with each federal election, but it is always at least 598. Unless a single party wins a simple majority — which is rare — multiple parties will need to join forces to form a governing coalition that, collectively makes up at least 50 percent of the Bundestag.

emdubs 9y ago

631 representatives for ~82 million people vs. 535 representatives for ~323 million people in the US The arbitrary capping of the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members is one of the biggest issues I have with the structure of the US legislature.