Sunday. September 26, 2021. Federal elections in Germany. Angela Merkel, after sixteen years in office, four consecutive terms, had decided not to run for re-election. In a few weeks we’ll know who her successor is.
Serge Schmemann, one of the world’s sharpest observers and analysts of events in Germany, and in Europe, wrote about Frau Merkel:
“These traits of honesty, modesty, discipline, persistence and reserve would seem almost quaint elsewhere, in New York City, say. But when someone facing almost insurmountable political odds — as a woman, an East German and a scientist — rises to the pinnacle of German power and stays there for four terms, there’s something for America and other democracies, where decent people are increasingly shunning politics, to learn and emulate.”
San Diego. 1996. Political advertisements of every kind must pass the objectivity test in Germany. The Germans expect substance and convincing arguments. And although the private and personal is seeping more and more into German politics, due to the influence of American politics, politicians in Germany are still identified directly with the stands they take on specific issues. They represent the political platforms of their respective parties.
Political party conventions in Germany are held once or twice a year. Their purpose is not to nominate candidates before elections, but instead to debate and formulate policy. At the conventions the stage is dominated by the party, with up to three or four rows of ten to fifteen seats per row occupied by the party elite. Until recently the speaker’s podium was to the side. And even though it has been moved to the center, the thirty to fifty colleagues occupying the stage send a clear signal: “Sure, we have different speakers during the convention. But make no mistake, the party comes first, the individuals politicians and office-holders come second!”
In the summer of 1996, while a political adviser to the CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group in Bonn, I – John Magee, creator of UC – attended the Republican National Convention in San Diego. My job was to accompany and assist Peter Hintze (then Secretary General of the CDU), Jürgen Chrobog (then German ambassador to the U.S.) and Ruprecht Polenz (then Member of the Foreign Relations Committee). Bob Dole and Jack Kemp were nominated, then in the general election beaten badly by Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
Along with meetings with leading Republicans, Peter Hintze was especially interested in observing the details of the convention. Part of his job was organizing and preparing the CDU conventions for Chancellor Helmut Kohl. It is well known that American party conventions serve the primary purpose of presenting to voters a high level of unity, in terms of the ticket and the substance of the party’s platform. Political debate does not take place, and certainly not in full view of the American public. Germany is different. The conventions are televised from start to finish. And the Germans debate, openly, directly, harshly. The German public can follow it blow by blow by television or radio.
The great sensation of that 1996 Republican National Convention was Colin Powell’s speech. Many had hoped that he would be their party’s candidate. Immediately after his 1992 election, Clinton asked Powell to be his Secretary of State, hoping to prevent a Powell-candidacy four years later. Powell had declined respectfully. The arena in San Diego, fifteen thousand strong, exploded in applause when General Powell walked on stage, in civilian clothes, and proceeded to speak directly to the hearts and minds of the American people. From his heart and with great intensity.
Like any and every truly persuasive speaker in the American context Powell used anecdotes, figures of speech and several brief, but very personal stories to convey his message. He wanted to move the people emotionally. Hintze and Chrobog turned to me time and again asking for an explanation of these stories. Was meint er damit? What does he mean? What is he trying to say? The atmosphere in the convention center was electrifying.
Sitting behind the two Germans, and due to the noise level, which had even surprised me, I had to stick my head forward between theirs and literally scream my responses to their questions. It was clear to all three Germans – Hintze, Chrobog, Polenz – that the convention, and General Powell’s speech, were all about emotions.
Joachim Sauer is a quantum- and physio-chemist. He is a professor of physical and theoretical chemistry at the Humboldt University of Berlin. He is also the husband of Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel.
The election of his wife to the most powerful governmental position in all of Germany had no impact on his career. They seldom appear together in public. He declines to answer any interview questions that do not have to do with his own research. In federal elections his part is irrelevant.
Public life is clearly separated from private life. The home-life scene is irrelevant in determining political success. This same pattern can also be seen in the careers of Joschka Fischer (former German Foreign Minister) and Gerhard Schröder (Merkel’s predecessor as Chancellor). Both were married several times.
Menschen bei Maischberger (People with Maischberger) is a popular and respected political talkshow in Germany hosted by Sandra Maischberger.
The topic on February 24, 2015 was Zar Wladimir I. – Was will Putin wirklich? – Czar Wladimir I. – What does Putin want?, and it included prominent guests including Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, a German journalist and author who spent many years of her career reporting from Moscow.
The topic of the show guaranteed intense discussion and controversy. Krone-Schmalz had particular difficulty remaining calm and collected. Time and again she avoided the questions about Putin, Russian aggression, and the situation in the Ukraine.
Maischberger and other guests zeroed in on her responses, politely, but directly. Krone-Schmalz lost her cool. Her emotional responses and defensiveness themselves became the topic of the discussion, so much so that she threatened to get up and leave the studio, stating: „Dann machen Sie Ihre Sendung doch alleine!“ – Well, you can do the show without me!
The Augsburger Allgemeine – the city of Augsburg’s newspaper – described Krone-Schmalz as grantig – huffy, grouchy, grumpy. In an interview with the BILD-Zeitung – Germany’s most-read daily – she said that ihr die Pferde durchgegangen sind – literally: the horses bolted on me, meaning things got out of control.
Frustration. Emotions. Passions. Anger. Nothing could be less persuasive in the German context. See the video above, especially 6:30 mins. onward.
There are some things which the Germans do not address openly. One is money, salary, personal wealth. If they have much, they avoid showing it. Boasting, bragging, swaggering in any way is considered to be very bad taste.
Respected and honored are those with wealth who live it in a dezent (discreet) way. This is true especially for senior-level executives who demonstrate deep subject-area expertise combined with a staid, conservative manner or demeanor.
“Showmasters” and “speech-makers” in Germany can be entertaining, at times even motivating. But those who are truly listened to and valued are those who put substance (subject matter) before form (person).
Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, former Minister of Commerce, then Minister of Defense, is a case in point. When he became minister in 2009 it was clear from the outset that there was a rather slick public relations approach to highlighting his political work and private life.
Guttenberg was a constant presence in the German media: the worldly man about town at Times Square in New York City; the rough and tough man dressed in a special forces uniform visiting the troops in Afghanistan; and as a man of the people on the popular variety tv-show “Wetten, daß ….?”
Guttenberg became very popular very quickly. He had brought fresh air into stodgy German politics. Over time, however, he gained more and more critics, who began to question his expertise. When it was then proven that he had plagiarized in his doctoral dissertation, he resigned his office in disgrace and disappeared from the German political scene.
Topics which in one culture would be considered sensitive (controversial) may not be considered so in another culture. This is the case with the German and the American cultures.
In discussions with Germans – friendly, respectful, but well-informed, interested, and critical-minded – it is not uncommon for them to raise the following topics with their American counterpart:
The wars in Afghanistan and Irak, U.S. drone strikes in the Middle East and Pakistan, the base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the Abu Ghuraib scandal, CIA-sponsored torture, the murder rate in the U.S., gun owneship and NRA influence, the increasing gap between rich and poor, the NSA spying scandal, the ominous power of Google, Apple, FaceBook and American-dominated social media.
Germans seek out lively discussions. And lively are those involving clear differences of opinion. And the more complex and relevant the topic, all the more interesting the conversation.
Except for topics which are plainly too personal and sensitive, Germans are willing to address almost any controversial topic. They enjoy the intellectual give and take. Controversial discussions are a form of mental chess.
At a deeper level Germans want to demonstrate that they are well informed, are proud of their high level of education, want to show a broad world view, that they are anything but provincial. Most importantly, Germans want people to know that they think independently, critically, do not simply agree with the masses.
The Berlin-Brandenburg Airport is a topic surrounded by discord. There is no end in sight for this odyssey. The costs just continue to rise into incalculable sums. This caused the association of taxpayers to heavily criticize the politicians responsible for it in 2012.
The airport was a manifest of poor planning, mismanagement, incomplete construction plans, and expenses beyond the budget. The association of taxpayers blacklisted the overseeing committee of high-ranking representatives from Berlin and Brandenburg and the federal government, accusing them of political failure and blind trust in the underqualified management” of the airport.
In the summer of 2014 several members of the Foreign Relations Committee of the German Bundestag visited Washington, DC. Their talks were overshadowed by media reports that the U.S. had been spying on the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND, Germany’s intelligence service) and the Verteidigungsministerum (German Ministry of Defense).
The Germans tried to help their American colleagues to understand the Empörung (indignation, anger, outrage) felt by the German people. They did not get very far, the ARD (one of Germany’s major tv networks) stated in their special report titled Problembewusstsein nicht vorhanden – Problem-consciousness non-existent.
The German parliamentarians left Washington with little hope that their colleagues in the Congress would be able to get the American intelligence agencies under control, if Members of Congress themselves were not aware (conscious) of the problems damaging German-American relations.
Entschuldigen Sie, ich bin nicht überzeugt! – “Excuse me, I am not convinced!“ In 2003, at the International Security Conference in Munich, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer ended the debate against his American colleague Donald Rumsfeld with this reproachful outcry.
But what had happened? Of what was Fischer not convinced? The debate was on the topic of aiding the intervention of U.S. military forces in Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted support from Germany, but the German government under the direction of Chancellor Schröder and Fischer strictly declined his request.
At the conference, Rumsfeld was making one last attempt at getting the still-doubtful Germans on board with his agenda. Nevertheless, his reasoning that Iraq was working on weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorist groups, and ignoring the UN, was not enough to convince the German side.
The evidence was too scant, the intervention plans too poorly prepared, and the timing of the operation seemed badly selected. It would be better just to give diplomacy another chance, rather than send German soldiers into an adventure with an uncertain end and questionable justification.
Presumably, Fischer (a former participant in the student protest movement of 1968) was drawing on more recent German history to strengthen his resolve in declining. And in this case, he now has history on his side; the Iraq war indeed evolved into just the disaster which he had always warned it would be.
2003. The Munich Security Conference. Then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer challenges then U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, “to make the case” for war in Iraq. Watch mins. 1:00 to 1:25, where Fischer speaks directly to Rumsfeld.