The essential link between message and messenger in American culture can be seen in the public behavior of elected officials. To be successful in the American political system a candidate often must embody their party’s political platform. The candidate is certainly more prominent than the party organization, and in some cases more so than its political platform.
The candidate is the Messenger-in-Chief, so to speak. Because they must connect with the voters on a personal level, the candidate’s character, personal life, their biography are examined carefully. American voters choose the candidate as person first, then the message as political platform.
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 – 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.
German political conventions demonstrate clearly that in Germany, substance is more important than form. For decades the podium was set to the side, with the stage dominated by up to fifty party leaders sitting in three or four extended rows.
And although in recent years the podium has been moved front and center, the stage continues to be dominated by party leaders. The message is clear. The party and its political platform remain front and center.
German political parties also do their best to keep hidden their internal power struggles. Instead they are presented as debates over substance which should be resolved internally and speedily. The politicians involved are quick to state that the battle is not about themselves or political office, but about important issues of substance.
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.
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.
In a major speech given by Helmut Kohl in October 1978 he quotes the German sociologist Max Weber: “not to put yourself in the middle point”, which could tempt one into “becoming an actor.” (from Politik als Beruf – Politics as Profession – January 1919).
Schauspieler can be translated also into masquerader. Kohl, at that time the leader the opposition Christian Democrats, as well as during his years as chancellor 1982-1998, was not known for his rhetorical skills.
Helmut Schmidt (SPD – Social Democratic Party), chancellor 1974-81, and an embittered critic of Kohl, was considered a brilliant public speaker.
Franz-Josef Strauss, head of the Christian Social Party (the Christian Democrat’s sister party in Bavaria) referred to Schmidt as Germany’s Staatschauspieler, loosely translated into the (Staat) state or government , (Schauspieler) actor. Or masquerader.
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.”