4 ms·

The weirdest thing about this is how surprising it was for most Germans, too. In the last election, the "Green" political party gained quite a lot on a promise

The weirdest thing about this is how surprising it was for most Germans, too. In the last election, the "Green" political party gained quite a lot on a promise of "no nuclear power", "less military", and "more feminism" and guess what, now they are the ones extending nuclear power plants and investing heavily into military. I predict that in 1-2 years, we'll have scientific studies about the disconnect between what voters wanted and what politicians delivered. Because in this case, it really seems like the communication broke down somewhere in between. The discrepancy is beyond obvious. Quotes in German: (We stand for a world without nuclear power) "Wir Grüne im Bundestag stehen für eine Welt ohne Atomkraft." https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/atomausstieg https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/atomausstieg (We stand for peace, disarmament, cooperative security, and a culture of military restraint) "Wir Grüne im Bundestag stehen für Frieden, Abrüstung, kooperative Sicherheit und eine Kultur der militärischen Zurückhaltung" https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/sicherheitspolitik https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/sicherheitspolitik

jialutu 5y ago
You don't have to wait 1-2 years, there are already studies for the US voting. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B?utm_source=pocket_mylist https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... Basically, the TL;DR version of this is that no, the average voter's decisions do not sway the decision of politicians, but the politicians decisions are heavily correlated with the preferences of the top 10% earners.
- vinyl7 5y ago
  I've noticed this for many many years, and it's part of the reason why I changed to registering as an independent. Listen to the candidate's campaigns, their goals, their views...it all sounds great. Then they get voted in and don't do anything of what they said they would do. On one hand it's frustrating, but on the other hand it works the same when looking at the opposing candidate. So it's kind of like...things won't get better but they probably also won't get drastically worse if my chosen candidate doesn't win.
  - mcv 5y ago
    The US needs more than two parties. Unfortunately the system is rigged against that, and neither of the two ruling parties are eager to fix the system that keeps them in power.
thevagrant 5y ago
Isn't this expected due to recent events? My govt spent a lot of resources battling covid. It wasnt the mandate they were voted in on. Covid meant their progress on campaign issues was sidelined a fair bit. Situations change. I would be more worried to have a party in power that ignores the issue of the day. (which happens frequently, for example with climate change).
native_samples 5y ago
It's not a big surprise. Modern neo-left politicians have a long track record of this kind of policy inversion when they get into power. The same thing happened with the Lib Dems in the UK. They only really had two policies going into coalition with the Conservatives: a referendum on proportional representation, which got modified into something slightly different and then they lost, and eliminating student fees, a pledge which they immediately abandoned once they were in power and realized how expensive it would be. Then it happened again with Brexit: a whole lot of MPs promised to respect the vote and implement the referendum, then once they got into power immediately and publicly reversed this position, in some cases even crossing the floor to join different parties that had 180 degree different policies (this doesn't automatically trigger a by-election in the UK, though really it should). The issue is not really communication breakdown. The problem is that politicians often don't really research their positions going in. Then once they are in government they get access to lots of briefings, 'secret' information, they have to start thinking about budgets and so on. Suddenly they realize their policies weren't quite as obvious as they thought they were. Getting rid of nuclear was flagged for many years as an obviously stupid move but the Greens could blow off such criticism as "right wing" and thus (to their supporters) not even worthy of consideration; suddenly they're in the hotseat and can't do it so easily anymore.
- mcv 5y ago
  How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo and protect whistleblowers? I was really hoping he'd have all the torturers prosecuted. That will probably never happen.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo The US isn't and executive dictatorship and Congress refused to allow the use of funds for that purpose. As in most modern democracies, the main policy-setting body of government in the US is the legislative, not executive branch.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
mcv 5y ago
It is odd, and yet it surprisingly makes sense too. But it's certainly weird to see German conservatives oppose military spending, while social democrats and greens embrace it. But that's also because just now, the threat of Russian aggression has become undeniable. Germany has for a long time pretended that Russia was just another peaceful country that they could trade with. And they were very reluctant to abandon that illusion because they depend so much on Russian gas. I will say, as a Green opponent of nuclear power myself, I think Germany in general, and the Greens in particular, are wrong about banning nuclear power before they've banned coal power. Coal is by far the bigger evil. Ban coal first, then oil, and after that, we can worry about nuclear. I'm not a fan, but in the age of global warming, it's probably the lesser evil.
sterlind 5y ago
you can have "more feminism" along with nuclear power and military, I'm not sure what the issue is there. just require compulsory service for women if it's required for men. even if women aren't as able to do infantry because of strength requirements, there's a ton of roles in the armed forces (logistics, mechanics, etc.) that don't require lugging 200kg.

jialutu 5y ago

You don't have to wait 1-2 years, there are already studies for the US voting. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B?utm_source=pocket_mylist https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... Basically, the TL;DR version of this is that no, the average voter's decisions do not sway the decision of politicians, but the politicians decisions are heavily correlated with the preferences of the top 10% earners.

vinyl7 5y ago
I've noticed this for many many years, and it's part of the reason why I changed to registering as an independent. Listen to the candidate's campaigns, their goals, their views...it all sounds great. Then they get voted in and don't do anything of what they said they would do. On one hand it's frustrating, but on the other hand it works the same when looking at the opposing candidate. So it's kind of like...things won't get better but they probably also won't get drastically worse if my chosen candidate doesn't win.
- mcv 5y ago
  The US needs more than two parties. Unfortunately the system is rigged against that, and neither of the two ruling parties are eager to fix the system that keeps them in power.

thevagrant 5y ago

Isn't this expected due to recent events? My govt spent a lot of resources battling covid. It wasnt the mandate they were voted in on. Covid meant their progress on campaign issues was sidelined a fair bit. Situations change. I would be more worried to have a party in power that ignores the issue of the day. (which happens frequently, for example with climate change).

native_samples 5y ago

It's not a big surprise. Modern neo-left politicians have a long track record of this kind of policy inversion when they get into power. The same thing happened with the Lib Dems in the UK. They only really had two policies going into coalition with the Conservatives: a referendum on proportional representation, which got modified into something slightly different and then they lost, and eliminating student fees, a pledge which they immediately abandoned once they were in power and realized how expensive it would be. Then it happened again with Brexit: a whole lot of MPs promised to respect the vote and implement the referendum, then once they got into power immediately and publicly reversed this position, in some cases even crossing the floor to join different parties that had 180 degree different policies (this doesn't automatically trigger a by-election in the UK, though really it should). The issue is not really communication breakdown. The problem is that politicians often don't really research their positions going in. Then once they are in government they get access to lots of briefings, 'secret' information, they have to start thinking about budgets and so on. Suddenly they realize their policies weren't quite as obvious as they thought they were. Getting rid of nuclear was flagged for many years as an obviously stupid move but the Greens could blow off such criticism as "right wing" and thus (to their supporters) not even worthy of consideration; suddenly they're in the hotseat and can't do it so easily anymore.

mcv 5y ago
How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo and protect whistleblowers? I was really hoping he'd have all the torturers prosecuted. That will probably never happen.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo The US isn't and executive dictatorship and Congress refused to allow the use of funds for that purpose. As in most modern democracies, the main policy-setting body of government in the US is the legislative, not executive branch.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago

mcv 5y ago

It is odd, and yet it surprisingly makes sense too. But it's certainly weird to see German conservatives oppose military spending, while social democrats and greens embrace it. But that's also because just now, the threat of Russian aggression has become undeniable. Germany has for a long time pretended that Russia was just another peaceful country that they could trade with. And they were very reluctant to abandon that illusion because they depend so much on Russian gas. I will say, as a Green opponent of nuclear power myself, I think Germany in general, and the Greens in particular, are wrong about banning nuclear power before they've banned coal power. Coal is by far the bigger evil. Ban coal first, then oil, and after that, we can worry about nuclear. I'm not a fan, but in the age of global warming, it's probably the lesser evil.

sterlind 5y ago

you can have "more feminism" along with nuclear power and military, I'm not sure what the issue is there. just require compulsory service for women if it's required for men. even if women aren't as able to do infantry because of strength requirements, there's a ton of roles in the armed forces (logistics, mechanics, etc.) that don't require lugging 200kg.