I’m not sure how I feel abour the parties that won the election now executing the plans of the losing party, in order to prevent that party from winning an election next time.
But hasnt this always been done? One example that comes to my mind, is CDU deciding to phase out atomic reactors or legalizing gay marriage because of the pressure from the greens.
The CDU didn’t decide to phase out nuclear reactors. It had prolonged the running time of the nuclear reactors just a year or two prior. It then backtracked on that move, getting back to the original plans. Also the CDU did not legalize gay marriage. They put it up to vote with the “Fraktionszwang” - the group coercion that is an informal principle of federal parliamentary groups - being lifted. Merkel herself voted against legalizing gay marriage. It was only that most of the opposition and governing SPD at the time and some of the CDU voted in favor.
Furthermore it is fundamentally different that now the CDU is helping to create the demand for more deportations and violation of the human rights of people by spreading lies and hate themselves, while blocking policies that could solve some of the problems that they blame migrants for (cost of housing and utilities, infrastructure and education investments, access to healthcare…)
It was done, because they could win elections with it, as those policies were genuinly popular and still mostly are. After Fukushima the greens were winning state elections against the CDU. There are also a fairly high number of gay conservative politicans in Germany. Jens Spahn and Alice Weidel come to mind.
Yes, but doesn’t that match exactly to what’s happening now? Most Germans agree that migration should be reduced. The CDU is loosing state elections against the AFD. So they have to react.
I’m not trying to argue it’s the right thing to do, or that I personally support it. Just find the parallels interesting
It’s a political necessity really. If you keep denying the losing party any influence, they’ll grow bigger.
The Danish political system has very successfully stopped the far right parties by acknowledging their concerns and bringing some but not all of their policies into the centrist parties. Honestly this is probably much better than the alternative of the far right parties getting more and more influence.
EDIT: If you’re not Danish and not familiar with our (very successful, I might add) democratic political system, you might not understand, but it has worked quite effectively here. Keep in mind the Danish political leaning is quite leftist already, so even some of our “right-wing” parties are still quite left wing all things considered.
You don’t win elections by accepting the framing of issues by fascists. You can’t do Nazi-light, people will just want to vote for the real thing anyway.
You need to point out that the economic hardships people are experiencing are due to billionaires hoarding wealth globally, not some poor immigrant trying to feed their family.
yeah, that is going really well /s – same in Germany - when the established parties started integrating fascist rhetoric/actions into theirs, the fascist party went from 10 to 20 percent in elections.
You cannot sway the dumb voters who fall for fascist rhetoric, by going “yes, the fascists are right, but …” because if the fascists are right, why change? Anything after “but” will be discarded by voters. All they heard was you agreeing with them.
Instead say “The fascists are wrong, because …” and then list one of the many, many reasons, ideally you also list ones applicable to the situation at hand.
I’m not sure how I feel abour the parties that won the election now executing the plans of the losing party, in order to prevent that party from winning an election next time.
I am with you, I think it’s a dumb idea. I believe we will suffer from this when the extreme right gains more political ground because of it.
I actually don’t think that they do it with the intention that the far right won’t get more votes:
https://www.stern.de/kultur/asyl-im-merz-wahlkampf--so-sind-sie-halt--die-auslaender-35444510.html
But hasnt this always been done? One example that comes to my mind, is CDU deciding to phase out atomic reactors or legalizing gay marriage because of the pressure from the greens.
The CDU didn’t decide to phase out nuclear reactors. It had prolonged the running time of the nuclear reactors just a year or two prior. It then backtracked on that move, getting back to the original plans. Also the CDU did not legalize gay marriage. They put it up to vote with the “Fraktionszwang” - the group coercion that is an informal principle of federal parliamentary groups - being lifted. Merkel herself voted against legalizing gay marriage. It was only that most of the opposition and governing SPD at the time and some of the CDU voted in favor.
Furthermore it is fundamentally different that now the CDU is helping to create the demand for more deportations and violation of the human rights of people by spreading lies and hate themselves, while blocking policies that could solve some of the problems that they blame migrants for (cost of housing and utilities, infrastructure and education investments, access to healthcare…)
It was done, because they could win elections with it, as those policies were genuinly popular and still mostly are. After Fukushima the greens were winning state elections against the CDU. There are also a fairly high number of gay conservative politicans in Germany. Jens Spahn and Alice Weidel come to mind.
Yes, but doesn’t that match exactly to what’s happening now? Most Germans agree that migration should be reduced. The CDU is loosing state elections against the AFD. So they have to react.
I’m not trying to argue it’s the right thing to do, or that I personally support it. Just find the parallels interesting
It’s a political necessity really. If you keep denying the losing party any influence, they’ll grow bigger.
The Danish political system has very successfully stopped the far right parties by acknowledging their concerns and bringing some but not all of their policies into the centrist parties. Honestly this is probably much better than the alternative of the far right parties getting more and more influence.
EDIT: If you’re not Danish and not familiar with our (very successful, I might add) democratic political system, you might not understand, but it has worked quite effectively here. Keep in mind the Danish political leaning is quite leftist already, so even some of our “right-wing” parties are still quite left wing all things considered.
You don’t win elections by accepting the framing of issues by fascists. You can’t do Nazi-light, people will just want to vote for the real thing anyway.
You need to point out that the economic hardships people are experiencing are due to billionaires hoarding wealth globally, not some poor immigrant trying to feed their family.
yeah, that is going really well /s – same in Germany - when the established parties started integrating fascist rhetoric/actions into theirs, the fascist party went from 10 to 20 percent in elections.
You cannot sway the dumb voters who fall for fascist rhetoric, by going “yes, the fascists are right, but …” because if the fascists are right, why change? Anything after “but” will be discarded by voters. All they heard was you agreeing with them.
Instead say “The fascists are wrong, because …” and then list one of the many, many reasons, ideally you also list ones applicable to the situation at hand.
quite the tell on how good democracy really is. don’t hate the player, hate the game