6 ms·

It didn’t force Merkel to do anything. It was just a cheap opportunity to try and grab a few Green votes.

rob74 6y ago
Well yeah, in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election. If you want proof that Merkel's instinct wasn't entirely wrong, you can take a look at the results of the 2013 election: her party (CDU/CSU) gained 7,7 points to 41,5 percent, while the FDP, who were seen as representing the industrial lobby, dropped a whopping 9,8 points to 4,8 percent (and out of the Bundestag, because a party has to get at least 5% to be represented there).
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  >in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election Well, there's the problem with our type of democracy. It boils down to a popularity contest instead of a competence one, so politicians will do or say whatever gets them re-elected instead of what's good for the long term being of the country/voters/society. Much like the focus on the "next quarter" of CEOs, that ends up ruining companies long term at the expense of quick profits short term, politicians in the west focus only on the "next election" instead of major issues like housing, education, pensions, demographics, infrastructure, defense, immigration, all of which require long term planning to get right but nobody cares as they just keep kicking the can down the road and hope they won't be in the office by the time shit really hits the fan. And when the shit does eventually hit the fan, whoever will be in office will just blame the predecessors for knowing X was unsustainable and not having done anything about it. Rinse and repeat.
  - toyg 6y ago
    I don't disagree, western democracy is still the worst system of government except for all others that have been tried from time to time. Solutions to short-termism are very welcome, but more often than not they tend to boil down to "someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it?
    - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
      >"someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it? Which is super ironic as Merkel has been in power since forever, well, 15 years to be exact, but still, way longer than most other EU or western governments.
      - toyg 6y ago
        But as mentioned, she had to steer her policies several times to do so. Democracy in action.
    - dsign 6y ago
      There is a simple solution to short-termism: create strong incentives for people to learn in depth about the topics they will press the politicians about. Even better, down that same road you can get effective direct democracy where everybody has a direct vote for the laws, and the legislative is no longer a representative body.
  - wazoox 6y ago
    Notice that the devolution of democracy into a "popularity contest" isn't a given: the French "Convention citoyenne pour le climat" proved that informed (and not propagandized) citizens can make rational political choices when given a chance.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    You can either see it as a problem or as its main feature. It's not great but at least it's better than public opinion having 0 effect on policy.
lispm 6y ago
> It didn’t force Merkel to do anything Merkel would have governed against the strong will of the Germans to get rid of nuclear ASAP. This topic has been intensely discussed in Germany for two decades already. That was not a sustainable position. Mass protests would have awaited the government.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Merkel would have governed against the strong will Her changing positions got a 10 point bump. It’s a large group for sure, but it’s still just placating dimwits to gain quick political support to stay in power. The vast majority clearly didn’t care.
  - lispm 6y ago
    > just placating dimwits Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. > The vast majority clearly didn’t care. The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics. Merkel knew everything about it, since she was before the responsible minister.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. Lack of respect specifically for 10 percent of the voters who changed their view of a politician to a positive based solely on her caving into populist pressure to adopt a bad energy policy. People are too ignorant to decide in any form of direct democracy how safe nuclear is. These dimwits chose to accelerate climate change (a well-known acute global problem) over nuclear power because “nuclear is scary” and didn’t support Merkel until she agreed. Despicable. > The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics Nope. The 10 point change showed how little it mattered. “Hottest political topics” just means people interested in national politics. It’s still irrelevant to the majority.
  - okl 6y ago
    Here is a survey from April 2011 that proves you wrong: https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/dt1104_bericht.pdf https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_u...

Well yeah, in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election. If you want proof that Merkel's instinct wasn't entirely wrong, you can take a look at the results of the 2013 election: her party (CDU/CSU) gained 7,7 points to 41,5 percent, while the FDP, who were seen as representing the industrial lobby, dropped a whopping 9,8 points to 4,8 percent (and out of the Bundestag, because a party has to get at least 5% to be represented there).

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
>in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election Well, there's the problem with our type of democracy. It boils down to a popularity contest instead of a competence one, so politicians will do or say whatever gets them re-elected instead of what's good for the long term being of the country/voters/society. Much like the focus on the "next quarter" of CEOs, that ends up ruining companies long term at the expense of quick profits short term, politicians in the west focus only on the "next election" instead of major issues like housing, education, pensions, demographics, infrastructure, defense, immigration, all of which require long term planning to get right but nobody cares as they just keep kicking the can down the road and hope they won't be in the office by the time shit really hits the fan. And when the shit does eventually hit the fan, whoever will be in office will just blame the predecessors for knowing X was unsustainable and not having done anything about it. Rinse and repeat.
- toyg 6y ago
  I don't disagree, western democracy is still the worst system of government except for all others that have been tried from time to time. Solutions to short-termism are very welcome, but more often than not they tend to boil down to "someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it?
  - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
    >"someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it? Which is super ironic as Merkel has been in power since forever, well, 15 years to be exact, but still, way longer than most other EU or western governments.
    - toyg 6y ago
      But as mentioned, she had to steer her policies several times to do so. Democracy in action.
  - dsign 6y ago
    There is a simple solution to short-termism: create strong incentives for people to learn in depth about the topics they will press the politicians about. Even better, down that same road you can get effective direct democracy where everybody has a direct vote for the laws, and the legislative is no longer a representative body.
- wazoox 6y ago
  Notice that the devolution of democracy into a "popularity contest" isn't a given: the French "Convention citoyenne pour le climat" proved that informed (and not propagandized) citizens can make rational political choices when given a chance.
- contravariant 6y ago
  You can either see it as a problem or as its main feature. It's not great but at least it's better than public opinion having 0 effect on policy.

lispm 6y ago

> It didn’t force Merkel to do anything Merkel would have governed against the strong will of the Germans to get rid of nuclear ASAP. This topic has been intensely discussed in Germany for two decades already. That was not a sustainable position. Mass protests would have awaited the government.

kortilla 6y ago
> Merkel would have governed against the strong will Her changing positions got a 10 point bump. It’s a large group for sure, but it’s still just placating dimwits to gain quick political support to stay in power. The vast majority clearly didn’t care.
- lispm 6y ago
  > just placating dimwits Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. > The vast majority clearly didn’t care. The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics. Merkel knew everything about it, since she was before the responsible minister.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. Lack of respect specifically for 10 percent of the voters who changed their view of a politician to a positive based solely on her caving into populist pressure to adopt a bad energy policy. People are too ignorant to decide in any form of direct democracy how safe nuclear is. These dimwits chose to accelerate climate change (a well-known acute global problem) over nuclear power because “nuclear is scary” and didn’t support Merkel until she agreed. Despicable. > The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics Nope. The 10 point change showed how little it mattered. “Hottest political topics” just means people interested in national politics. It’s still irrelevant to the majority.
- okl 6y ago
  Here is a survey from April 2011 that proves you wrong: https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/dt1104_bericht.pdf https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_u...