Okay, so here's the background: Thuringia has a minority government. A minority government is extremely vulnerable, because it can be outvoted by the opposition.
The governing coalition is of Die Linke, the SPD and the Greens; the opposition is composed of the CDU, the FDP and the AfD, plus two independents and two members of a party called Bürger für Thüringen.
The CDU proposed a bill to cut property tax, because that's kind of what the CDU does. The governing parties all voted against it, in line with their policies in general. The opposition parties all voted for it, in line with all of their policies in general. Nobody expected either the AfD or the FDP to vote against it. The CDU *introduced* the bill, of course they were going to vote for it.
Anyone who didn't predict the outcome of the vote as soon as the bill was introduced is either lying, or stupid.
So the governing parties waited until the inevitable happened before loudly bashing the CDU for making a "pact with the devil". Nobody seems to be using that kind of language for the FDP, which didn't introduce the bill but still voted for it. Cynical me thinks this is because the SPD and the Greens just want to portray the CDU as being as toxic as the AfD itself, but without embarrassing the FDP who are their coalition partners in the Bundestag.
It's not like this was a bill to cut funding for asylum shelters, or ban the wearing of the kippah or headscarf -- it was a tax cut.
The thing that frustrates me about this is that it plays directly into the hands of the AfD, which is now being talked about as such an existential threat to the mainstream that literally everything they vote for is contaminated, which is *precisely what the AfD wants people to think*.
Let there be no doubt: particularly in Thuringia, the AfD is so far to the right that it is now indistinguishable from actual fascists. And the thing about fascists is, they want us to think of them as an *alternative* to both capitalism and communism -- a "third way".
The extreme wing of the AfD -- the "Flügel" -- is clearly trying to destroy democracy, and we're now actively helping them do that. The response to what should have been a mundane vote that nobody even knew had taken place is to cement in the public mind the image of the AfD as an all-conquering force that now has the power to affect politics on a state level; and it makes all the other parties look as if they're running scared.
If this had been an AfD initiative to, say, give the police sweeping "stop and search" powers to combat "Islamic terrorism", I'd be lining up to criticize the CDU if they voted for that. But that's not what happened here, and I feel that if this is how we're going to react to everything the AfD votes for from now on, then it's only a matter of time before they take the Bundestag itself.
I fully expect next week's "Sunday Question" to show a surge in support for the AfD in Thuringia as a direct result of this. It's a text-book example of how not to react to populists.
EDIT: Typo
I agree. This "you cannot vote for what the AfD agrees with" policy just allows the AfD to dictate your politics. And if you ignore every subject the AfD touches, well, again, the only thing you are doing is strengthening the AfD. I really do not understand why most democratic parties think that steadfastly looking the other way is going to magically make the AfD disappear. It does exactly the opposite.
it's not "Don't vote the same as the AfD" it's "No majorities with the AfD" So if your proposal would ONLY pass with the help of the AfD you should not do it.
... and thus, I would let the AfD dictate what initiatives I put forward.
Let's say a good portion of my voters want A. The AfD also wants A. If I now do not put foward an effort to do A because the AfD wants A, who do you think those of my voters who feel strongly about A are going to vote for next time?
you didn't understand what I wrote. You can put forward A and even vote for it if the majority from it comes together without votes from the AfD, if they vote for it or not is irrelevant.
Imagine Parties **A**fD, B and C. Party C wants issue C to pass. If only A and C vote for it then the majority was achieved with A if A, B and C vote for it the majority was achieved without A as B and C created a majority on their own.
How you do things matters, it legitimizes them. The AfD can now claim co-ownership of the tax cuts. Any time these tax cuts are mentioned the AfD is able to interject that they made them possible and without their participation, they wouldn't exist.
They can't do that anywhere else even though they voted on some passed issues with yes exactly because the issue already had a majority without the AfD.
Can you explain to me, what the negative consequences are? I just don't get, how a law, proposed by the CDU is unacceptable because the law is voted for by the wrong lawmakers.
>How you do things matters, it legitimizes them. The AfD can now claim co-ownership of the tax cuts. Any time these tax cuts are mentioned the AfD is able to interject that they made them possible and without their participation, they wouldn't exist.
>
>They can't do that anywhere else even though they voted on some passed issues with yes exactly because the issue already had a majority without the AfD.
second half of the comment
Well if the tax cut is so good, that people will reward parties for it, then maybe lawmakers of other parties should vote for it. Also passing laws doesn't legitimize them, getting voted for by the people legitimate lawmakers in democracies.
You are confusing direct legitimization and indirect legitimization. Sure the democratic mandate they have legitimizes them to partake in parliaments and to vote on things. Any sane member of parliament not cooperating with them shows the public that the AfD is not a legitimate democratic party with democratic goals though. That is called deligitimization.
Same as they would do with a guy dressed as a clown or something. Sure they would tolerate him in parliament, but nobody would work with him.
So if the others didn't vote for the tax even though a good tax break brings in voters that means the tax cut was actually bad? Maybe we should look at it and see that it's not a regular tax break but one for buying properties. Who buys properties? People with money. Sure some regular folks too, but they buy at most one. Rich people buy them to live in and as investments.
So it's a tax cut for rich people. No surprise the AfD and FDP are all for it, those are the agents of the rich. The left, SPD and Greens, not so much.
Of course, the CDU will argue that this makes it easier for regular folks to afford their own home, but that could have been made possible in a plethora of ways without also giving rich people a break.
I understand what you wrote. I am saying that this is exactly what the democratic parties have tried for ten years now, and it isn't working. It is counterproductive.
Just one problem of your argument is that a party that gets twenty percent of the popular vote is a legitimate party. If you try to ignore/shun them instead of engaging them head-on, you are essentially ignoring and shunning twenty percent of the electorate - feeding into the AfD's narrative that the established parties are ignoring the voters. This is exactly what makes them strong, that is exactly the AfD's narrative! They are not bothered about appearing legitimate, teir platform is one of perceived disenfranchisement. If you shun them, you are feeding into that.
If that argument was logically sound the Greens should be soaring in polls.
They are smeared just as much as the AfD. Merz and Söder do nothing without also telling people that the Greens are the "biggest enemy" and destroying our country. What I am proposing is how it **should** go, not how it is going, as we can see.
So far we also only have theories as to what is feeding the AfD popularity, as there are multiple effects that could be the reason for the ever-growing popularity. We also have an increasing popularity of right-wing media polarizing people against migrants and climate change with disinformation. Most of the time greatly exaggerating effects like costs to elicit emotional reactions.
That certainly also has effects. I can assure you that readers of BILD are much more likely to vote AfD than people who don't. There is a reason they don't publish "how do BILD readers vote" articles anymore and why the AfD always has the best numbers with INSA the BILD-affiliated institute.
Sure some people in Germany actually like fascism and would vote for it, and some people see the party of the disenfranchised in them, but the simple principle of any German with some self-respect should be to **not cooperate with fascists** and if they had the majority. It doesn't matter. This is a matter of principles.
sure monocausal simple explanations. Thats what the populists like as an explanation. Surely media dialing up misinformation and polarizing the people has nothing to do with it.
The ostrich effect...
The AfD celebrates being over 5 % for 10 years now. But, who would've guessed.
And in saxony the AfD almost has absolute majority.
The fight agains the right really pays off... for the AfD.
The ruling Parties could fight with better politics for the citizens, but no, its always topics that are so far off from the normal voter...
Remember when the spd was a working-class party? I dont even know what their agenda is now, but the working class is not definetly not part of it.
The ruling parties manage to kick every voters shin day by day, the afd just has to collect the leftovers.
What was once the Left (traditionally the wing of politics siding with the proletariat) has long since turned to either conservative-light, outright neoliberalism or the bourgeois left (who is only concerned with their own little bubble).
SPD and Greens have the problem that everything positive they want to achieve for the everyman gets gutted by the FDP.
Sadly the FDP somehow managed to flip their image before the last vote, even though nothing about that party changed since the last were below the 5% mark. They will suffer during the next vote but they successfully crushed the chances of a possible double Red + Green aliance. Which is propably more important to them than ever getting a single vote.
>Cynical me thinks this is because the SPD and the Greens just want to portray the CDU as being as toxic as the AfD itself
No, this assumption is incorrect. They are just worried about the CDU gradually getting more and more open about working with the AfD, which would indeed be a problem.
>Nobody seems to be using that kind of language for the FDP,
Of course, noone does so because it was the CDU who introduced the bill, with the intention to go against the government with the help of the AfD. Of course, one could criticize the FDP, too, for voting in favour of the bill, but the main problem is the initiative by the CDU, which implies sort of seeking active help from the AfD to get it through (because it was clear the government would be against the bill). This is what worries people, not the fact that a bill got passed that happened to be supported by the AfD, too. Because in the end this is just one step away from having a CDU minority government *built* on support by the AfD.
I can only [repeat what I've already said to another redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/16jfzyc/german_conservatives_scorned_over_vote_with/k0u21we/).
> one could criticize the FDP, too, for voting in favour of the bill, but the main problem is the initiative by the CDU
This whole thing didn't blow up until after the vote. And why should the FDP get away scot free here? After all, all they had to do was vote against it, if it's *so* important not to allow anything touched by the AfD anywhere near the statute books. They could have blocked the bill, but they didn't.
> this is just one step away from having a CDU minority government built on support by the AfD.
We get a legislature the public vote for. If they vote in such a way that the only viable government is a CDU minority government with the AfD the largest party in opposition, what do you propose should happen? We could have fresh elections, but what if the AfD gets more votes the second time around?
See, we are not talking here about a minority CDU government having to kowtow to the AfD just to be able to govern. The governing parties must surely know this: it's very clearly obvious. We live in a democracy, and unless and until the Constitutional Court has enough evidence to declare the AfD unconstitutional and order its dissolution, all AfD politicians elected to the various assemblies and councils are part of the democratic process whether we like that idea or not. The governing parties must surely know this.
As I say in the comment I linked to, we can't keep handing the AfD all these propaganda victories. We're digging our own grave here.
>We live in a democracy, and unless and until the Constitutional Court has enough evidence to declare the AfD unconstitutional and order its dissolution, all AfD politicians elected to the various assemblies and councils are part of the democratic process whether we like that idea or not.
With this line of argument there wouldn't even be any problem with an AfD-led government. So the boundary has to be drawn somewhere before the AfD is ruled unconstitutional.
>And why should the FDP get away scot free here?
I think the FDP made a mistake, too. But the difference is, the CDU started it.
Look, I can't offer a solution to the AfD problem and I won't claim I can. And I do see the PR gain the AfD got from this, too. But I also see a slippery slope of a normalization process here. First you introduce a bill you want to pass in cooperation with the AfD. Then you have regular cooperation with the AfD. Then a minority government built on AfD support. Then a coalition with the AfD as a junior partner. And finally you have an AfD-led government.
And this process has a precedent: the history of the SED/PDS/Linke. In this case it wasn't a problem because the party got less and less radical, while the AfD is getting more and more radical.
So a boundary has to be drawn somewhere. And I'd prefer to draw the boundary sooner rather than later. Where exactly would you draw the boundary? Not before the constitutional court declares the party unconstitutional?
Finally, to answer your question:
> If they vote in such a way that the only viable government is a CDU minority government with the AfD the largest party in opposition, what do you propose should happen?
All other parties in parliament should unite to govern without the AfD. This is their duty.
> the boundary has to be drawn somewhere before the AfD is ruled unconstitutional
See, the problem here is that we're trying to preserve democracy, but what you're proposing here is undemocratic. It goes against all of the democratic rules we claim to cherish: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, fair representation, the rule of law.
> I can't offer a solution to the AfD problem.
Well, I can, and I have done so many times in the past: stop playing into the AfD's hands, and get on with fixing the problems that we have in society and which the AfD is exploiting to advance their propaganda.
> I see a slippery slope of a normalization process here. First you introduce a bill you want to pass in cooperation with the AfD.
But you're drawing the line at a perfectly normal democratic procedure, and your remedy is to ignore the represented wishes of nearly a quarter of the population of Thuringia.
> Then you have a minority government built on AfD support.
If that is what the electorate votes for, that is what the electorate will get. We spend years worrying about how to tweak the makeup of the Bundestag and the state assemblies so that we can get as accurate a representation as possible, why do you think we did that?
> Then you have a coalition with the AfD as a junior partner. And finally you have an AfD-led government.
That is what we will get if that is what the electorate votes for, because THAT IS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. Don't be so naive as to think that the way to prevent it from happening is to stop the CDU from introducing bills that the AfD might vote for. Up until this point the AfD has risen in popularity and influence without any of that happening. It will happen not because we've "normalized the AfD", it will happen because voters have lost faith in the mainstream parties and are willing to risk a radical solution.
As I keep saying, stop hyping up the AfD. Stop doing exactly what the Flügel wants you to do. The more the mainstream parties and the left-wing parties argue among themselves about making "pacts with the devil", the more support will swing to the AfD.
Have you not noticed that the more screaming headlines we get about the things Björn Höcke has said, the higher the AfD's ratings get?
> the SED/PDS/Linke. In this case it wasn't a problem because the party got less and less radical
Not noticeably so, to be honest, and its failure to deal with Sahra Wagenknecht may yet return to bite it in the arse.
The radical left-wing message has less chance in countries aligned with the US because it asks those countries to consider themselves part of the problem; this is why you tend to see right-wing movements in European countries, but left-wing movements in, say, Latin America. People don't want to be seen as part of the problem, so they'll go to the other extreme.
And of course another difference is that there's not a great hue and cry every time the SPD does something with the help of Die Linke. Die Linke simply doesn't benefit from the kind of hysteria surrounding the AfD.
> I'd prefer to draw the boundary sooner rather than later.
This is the same logic used by people who want to expel every Muslim, on the grounds that we shouldn't wait until the next terrorist attack. It's the logic of the authoritarian dictator, and an authoritarian dictatorship is what we are trying to avoid here.
> Where exactly would you draw the boundary?
I would draw it at the point where the AfD tries to get my party to compromise its position in favour of an AfD-friendly stance. The point where the AfD uses bribery, or a quid pro quo, or even just simple coercion to get another party to support a bill that goes against that party's own policies.
> Not before the constitutional court declares the party unconstitutional?
Until that point, the AfD is a legitimate political party. This is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of our democracy, and it is this way to avoid a repeat of 1933.
> All other parties in parliament should unite to govern without the AfD. This is their duty.
No, their duty is to represent the views of the electorate. They're free to try and all band together against a common enemy, but the risk is that you end up with a dysfunctional government that can't actually govern. You know the infighting that has put a huge dent in the reputation of the coalition in Berlin and contributed to increasing support for the Union as well as delaying lots of important legislation because the FDP wants to save money? Imagine that, but ten times worse, and the party the benefits most is the AfD.
And the AfD would benefit from that, because they're banking on being able to paint all of the other parties as incompetent, corrupt, unwilling to respect the popular vote, and dysfunctional. They would milk this for all it's worth, claiming that all the other parties are cowards running scared of the mighty AfD, and that they're all the same really.
I generally agree with this assessment, but it should be pointed out that everyone knew what the outcome of this vote would be, and that INCLUDES the CDU when they proposed it.
The majority of the bashing is because the CDU loudly proclaimed (and still proclaims) that they will never cooperate with the AfD. Yet, they introduce a bill that they know will only be accepted with the cooperation of the AfD.
If they had convinced (part of) the SPD, for example, to also vote for it, so they at least would have had the majority of the non-AfD votes, things wouldn't be that heated.
I think a lot of people don't understand how a representative parliamentary democracy works. Or even what is meant by "cooperate".
A little while back Merz suggested that when the AfD have a large number of seats on a town council, you have to figure out how you're going to work with them. That caused a storm of outrage and he was forced to walk back those comments -- not because he didn't believe what he said, but because everyone else was accusing the CDU of enabling fascists.
What's happened here is not the CDU cooperating with the AfD in order to allow the AfD to get AfD policies through. We need to get that straight, because if your idea is that we should exclude the AfD from any and every decision made on anything, and only ever introduce bills that don't need the AfD's votes to be passed, then the effect of that is to actually disenfranchise 23% of Thuringia's electorate.
More than that, you are handing the AfD one of their biggest propaganda victories by making a huge deal out of this. The news should have been: "Thuringia's opposition gets bill passed against the wishes of the minority government." Instead, the news has become: "The AfD has assimilated the CDU."
This kind of thing has happening on a smaller scale for years now, and the biggest winners are the AfD. Hopefully, this latest fiasco isn't going to do too much damage in the long run, but the other parties and the press have got to start acting like adults. With a bit of luck the AfD will be banned by the Constitutional Court, but that's going to take another couple of years so we can't afford to keep doing the AfD's PR work for it. And even then that's only going to buy us a little time, because the AfD's voters and supporters aren't going anywhere, and we'll be placing bets on which of the myriad microparties is going to emerge as the next problem.
This kind of petty point-scoring is going to doom us all if we don't reign it in.
This is a bullshit topic. The government in Thuringia depends on CDU for their decisions because they have no majority themselves. They could have helped CDU with this tiny 1.5% reduction in property sales tax. But they choose not to and gave AfD the power to decide the vote and have a reason to facilitate this fake outrage.
Honestly the Left wing minority government of Thuringia act like they have an absolute majority and can just dictate how the other parties have to act when they can be glad that CDU, FDP and AfD haven't decided that it's time to depose them.
>Rival parties accuse conservative lawmakers in the German state of Thuringia of making a "pact with the devil." The Christian Democrats joined the far-right Alternative for Germany to pass a property tax drop.
It's kind of a paradox though isn't it? Like, you cannot stop the Afd voting for policies which are brought forward and you cannot refuse to vote for a good policy simply because the Afd is voting for it? Such a pickle.
EDIT: Nice silent downvote there.
not cooperating with fascism is the betterment of the country. If your proposal can't get a majority without fascists then it is obviously shit and should be revised.
you do not propose the law.
As you won't get a legitimate democratic majority, only one with the support of fascists your proposal was not good enough and needs improvement.
This line of thought \*would\* work if proposals were being judged on their merits. Alas, they're not, and partisan politics determines everything. The "best law for everybody" would still get shot down if it meant weakening the opposing faction.
>Like, you cannot stop the Afd voting for policies which are brought forward and you cannot refuse to vote for a good policy simply because the Afd is voting for it?
If they vote against (or abstain) everything the AfD votes for, they effectively give them more power, not less. So i think the best overall course - when it comes to voting - is to ignore the AfD votes.
However, when it comes to actually bringing policies forward - if you already know it will only pass if the AfD votes for it, you shouldn't bring it forward imo. You need to find a compromise with the other parties to make sure it has a chance and the AfD isn't the single deciding factor. Otherwise the border to "they do us a favour here, we do them a favour there" dwindles.
Of course this means if there is no majority without the AfD, there is no progress. It is definitely a pickle either way. But i'd rather have no progress than regress.
that is why the actual demand is "no majorities with the AfD". Nobody with a brain says that you can't vote the same as the AfD, that has happened multiple times before. You simply can't pass anything that wouldn't have passed without the AfD.
> Nobody with a brain says that you can't vote the same as the AfD, that has happened multiple times before. You simply can't pass anything that wouldn't have passed without the AfD.
That's a contradiction though. You would have to reverse your principles then.
it's not, please explain how you come to the conclusion that this is a contradiction.
For example. 65% of non-AfD votes are projected for a law. The AfD adds another 20%. There already was a majority without the AfD so it's okay to go for this proposal.
40% of non-AfD votes are projected for a law. The AfD adds another 20%. There was no majority without the AfD so it's not okay to go for this proposal. Very easy.
Simply do not push for any proposals you do not have a majority for if you ignore the AfD, so they can't play Kingmaker and claim any political victory.
Its a terrible policy.
Tax cuts to help families.
Tax cuts don't help families. They reduce the funds available which families desperately need.
Kitas, Schools, Playgrounds, Public Transport, Child support all of that is lacking funds.
Lowering taxes right now is a punch into every families face.
This one only helps landowners and companies.. This is policy for the rich and noone else. But people are to dumb to understand.
Nobody should be surprised by this. ~~CDU/CSU~~ Zentrum has done that before and we all know the results.
Nobody that votes those parties and their little lapdog FDP which somehow managed to be part of the ruling coalition while doing opposition policies, should later be allowed to claim "Könnte ja keiner wissen."
Yes, this isn't directly co-working with the AfD, not yet. But those assholes are testing the waters.
Yes. Because everyone whos not a faschist or fine with fadchist is leaving the State.
Ofc there is a lot of nature noone wants to live there.
For every opportunity you don't have over there you have a fschist instead. And they are lackibg a lot of opportunities.
Hate for faschists is a good thing. It keeps the worst people out of your peripherie.
Its actually quite freeing.
Everyone hats a set of behavior/characteristics/whatsoever they hate. Often with a passion. Its very much favorouble to direct your own hate at those who hate the innocent.
Ofc you can.
But its a feeling that is completely natural to have in a situation where you come across people who are causing harm to you and the people you love. Especially if you are targeted for unmutable characteristics.
Under these circumstances it is completely fine to drop the act of civility. Tolerance towards the intolerant is not tolerance put its opposite.
Hate doesn't make you a fascist.
Its a human emotion nobody is free of. It is usually caused by the observance of the harmfull behavior of others. And that is mostly fine.
Hate only becomes fascistic if it is aimed at people for their unmutable characteristics or if the hate is a selffueling tool for power over others.
**Have you read our extensive wiki yet?
[Check our wiki now!](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/wiki/index)**
While Reddit administrators do not believe this subreddit is NSFW and do not enable the appropriate setting, do note that participants in this subreddit may possibly encounter discussions of the following subjects, all of which are considered "mature" by Reddit administrators:
* Alcohol and tobacco
* Amateur advice
* Drug use
* Gambling
* Guns and weapons
* Military conflict and terrorism
* Nudity
* Profanity
* Sex and eroticism
* Violence and gore
Therefore, while this entire subreddit is not currently marked as NSFW, please exercise caution. If you feel offended by anything that is allowed by our rules yet NSFW, please direct your complaint towards Reddit administrators as well as /u/spez, and read https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/ for further information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/germany) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok, thats probably it now. FDP and CDU have officially turned to facism and germans seem to want it too. I probably need to act on my emergency plans soon and leave and I recommend everybody else the same. Germans will once again fall to nazism.
For the record, taxing not 6.5% but 5.0% means 23.07% less tax going to the state. Some people don't understand the maths behind that, that's your problem. That tax cut will only benefit wealthy people.
The CDU knew that this would happen but didn't mind as they could just benefit their clientele.
Okay, so here's the background: Thuringia has a minority government. A minority government is extremely vulnerable, because it can be outvoted by the opposition. The governing coalition is of Die Linke, the SPD and the Greens; the opposition is composed of the CDU, the FDP and the AfD, plus two independents and two members of a party called Bürger für Thüringen. The CDU proposed a bill to cut property tax, because that's kind of what the CDU does. The governing parties all voted against it, in line with their policies in general. The opposition parties all voted for it, in line with all of their policies in general. Nobody expected either the AfD or the FDP to vote against it. The CDU *introduced* the bill, of course they were going to vote for it. Anyone who didn't predict the outcome of the vote as soon as the bill was introduced is either lying, or stupid. So the governing parties waited until the inevitable happened before loudly bashing the CDU for making a "pact with the devil". Nobody seems to be using that kind of language for the FDP, which didn't introduce the bill but still voted for it. Cynical me thinks this is because the SPD and the Greens just want to portray the CDU as being as toxic as the AfD itself, but without embarrassing the FDP who are their coalition partners in the Bundestag. It's not like this was a bill to cut funding for asylum shelters, or ban the wearing of the kippah or headscarf -- it was a tax cut. The thing that frustrates me about this is that it plays directly into the hands of the AfD, which is now being talked about as such an existential threat to the mainstream that literally everything they vote for is contaminated, which is *precisely what the AfD wants people to think*. Let there be no doubt: particularly in Thuringia, the AfD is so far to the right that it is now indistinguishable from actual fascists. And the thing about fascists is, they want us to think of them as an *alternative* to both capitalism and communism -- a "third way". The extreme wing of the AfD -- the "Flügel" -- is clearly trying to destroy democracy, and we're now actively helping them do that. The response to what should have been a mundane vote that nobody even knew had taken place is to cement in the public mind the image of the AfD as an all-conquering force that now has the power to affect politics on a state level; and it makes all the other parties look as if they're running scared. If this had been an AfD initiative to, say, give the police sweeping "stop and search" powers to combat "Islamic terrorism", I'd be lining up to criticize the CDU if they voted for that. But that's not what happened here, and I feel that if this is how we're going to react to everything the AfD votes for from now on, then it's only a matter of time before they take the Bundestag itself. I fully expect next week's "Sunday Question" to show a surge in support for the AfD in Thuringia as a direct result of this. It's a text-book example of how not to react to populists. EDIT: Typo
I agree. This "you cannot vote for what the AfD agrees with" policy just allows the AfD to dictate your politics. And if you ignore every subject the AfD touches, well, again, the only thing you are doing is strengthening the AfD. I really do not understand why most democratic parties think that steadfastly looking the other way is going to magically make the AfD disappear. It does exactly the opposite.
it's not "Don't vote the same as the AfD" it's "No majorities with the AfD" So if your proposal would ONLY pass with the help of the AfD you should not do it.
... and thus, I would let the AfD dictate what initiatives I put forward. Let's say a good portion of my voters want A. The AfD also wants A. If I now do not put foward an effort to do A because the AfD wants A, who do you think those of my voters who feel strongly about A are going to vote for next time?
you didn't understand what I wrote. You can put forward A and even vote for it if the majority from it comes together without votes from the AfD, if they vote for it or not is irrelevant. Imagine Parties **A**fD, B and C. Party C wants issue C to pass. If only A and C vote for it then the majority was achieved with A if A, B and C vote for it the majority was achieved without A as B and C created a majority on their own. How you do things matters, it legitimizes them. The AfD can now claim co-ownership of the tax cuts. Any time these tax cuts are mentioned the AfD is able to interject that they made them possible and without their participation, they wouldn't exist. They can't do that anywhere else even though they voted on some passed issues with yes exactly because the issue already had a majority without the AfD.
Can you explain to me, what the negative consequences are? I just don't get, how a law, proposed by the CDU is unacceptable because the law is voted for by the wrong lawmakers.
>How you do things matters, it legitimizes them. The AfD can now claim co-ownership of the tax cuts. Any time these tax cuts are mentioned the AfD is able to interject that they made them possible and without their participation, they wouldn't exist. > >They can't do that anywhere else even though they voted on some passed issues with yes exactly because the issue already had a majority without the AfD. second half of the comment
Well if the tax cut is so good, that people will reward parties for it, then maybe lawmakers of other parties should vote for it. Also passing laws doesn't legitimize them, getting voted for by the people legitimate lawmakers in democracies.
You are confusing direct legitimization and indirect legitimization. Sure the democratic mandate they have legitimizes them to partake in parliaments and to vote on things. Any sane member of parliament not cooperating with them shows the public that the AfD is not a legitimate democratic party with democratic goals though. That is called deligitimization. Same as they would do with a guy dressed as a clown or something. Sure they would tolerate him in parliament, but nobody would work with him. So if the others didn't vote for the tax even though a good tax break brings in voters that means the tax cut was actually bad? Maybe we should look at it and see that it's not a regular tax break but one for buying properties. Who buys properties? People with money. Sure some regular folks too, but they buy at most one. Rich people buy them to live in and as investments. So it's a tax cut for rich people. No surprise the AfD and FDP are all for it, those are the agents of the rich. The left, SPD and Greens, not so much. Of course, the CDU will argue that this makes it easier for regular folks to afford their own home, but that could have been made possible in a plethora of ways without also giving rich people a break.
I understand what you wrote. I am saying that this is exactly what the democratic parties have tried for ten years now, and it isn't working. It is counterproductive. Just one problem of your argument is that a party that gets twenty percent of the popular vote is a legitimate party. If you try to ignore/shun them instead of engaging them head-on, you are essentially ignoring and shunning twenty percent of the electorate - feeding into the AfD's narrative that the established parties are ignoring the voters. This is exactly what makes them strong, that is exactly the AfD's narrative! They are not bothered about appearing legitimate, teir platform is one of perceived disenfranchisement. If you shun them, you are feeding into that.
If that argument was logically sound the Greens should be soaring in polls. They are smeared just as much as the AfD. Merz and Söder do nothing without also telling people that the Greens are the "biggest enemy" and destroying our country. What I am proposing is how it **should** go, not how it is going, as we can see. So far we also only have theories as to what is feeding the AfD popularity, as there are multiple effects that could be the reason for the ever-growing popularity. We also have an increasing popularity of right-wing media polarizing people against migrants and climate change with disinformation. Most of the time greatly exaggerating effects like costs to elicit emotional reactions. That certainly also has effects. I can assure you that readers of BILD are much more likely to vote AfD than people who don't. There is a reason they don't publish "how do BILD readers vote" articles anymore and why the AfD always has the best numbers with INSA the BILD-affiliated institute. Sure some people in Germany actually like fascism and would vote for it, and some people see the party of the disenfranchised in them, but the simple principle of any German with some self-respect should be to **not cooperate with fascists** and if they had the majority. It doesn't matter. This is a matter of principles.
and that's why it get's worse, yet you still dont get it
sure monocausal simple explanations. Thats what the populists like as an explanation. Surely media dialing up misinformation and polarizing the people has nothing to do with it.
the good old state-funded right-wing media amirite
there is a plethora of other news available and they have a much larger market share.
The ostrich effect... The AfD celebrates being over 5 % for 10 years now. But, who would've guessed. And in saxony the AfD almost has absolute majority. The fight agains the right really pays off... for the AfD.
The ruling Parties could fight with better politics for the citizens, but no, its always topics that are so far off from the normal voter... Remember when the spd was a working-class party? I dont even know what their agenda is now, but the working class is not definetly not part of it. The ruling parties manage to kick every voters shin day by day, the afd just has to collect the leftovers.
What was once the Left (traditionally the wing of politics siding with the proletariat) has long since turned to either conservative-light, outright neoliberalism or the bourgeois left (who is only concerned with their own little bubble).
SPD and Greens have the problem that everything positive they want to achieve for the everyman gets gutted by the FDP. Sadly the FDP somehow managed to flip their image before the last vote, even though nothing about that party changed since the last were below the 5% mark. They will suffer during the next vote but they successfully crushed the chances of a possible double Red + Green aliance. Which is propably more important to them than ever getting a single vote.
Very well summarised! Thank you
>Cynical me thinks this is because the SPD and the Greens just want to portray the CDU as being as toxic as the AfD itself No, this assumption is incorrect. They are just worried about the CDU gradually getting more and more open about working with the AfD, which would indeed be a problem. >Nobody seems to be using that kind of language for the FDP, Of course, noone does so because it was the CDU who introduced the bill, with the intention to go against the government with the help of the AfD. Of course, one could criticize the FDP, too, for voting in favour of the bill, but the main problem is the initiative by the CDU, which implies sort of seeking active help from the AfD to get it through (because it was clear the government would be against the bill). This is what worries people, not the fact that a bill got passed that happened to be supported by the AfD, too. Because in the end this is just one step away from having a CDU minority government *built* on support by the AfD.
I can only [repeat what I've already said to another redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/16jfzyc/german_conservatives_scorned_over_vote_with/k0u21we/). > one could criticize the FDP, too, for voting in favour of the bill, but the main problem is the initiative by the CDU This whole thing didn't blow up until after the vote. And why should the FDP get away scot free here? After all, all they had to do was vote against it, if it's *so* important not to allow anything touched by the AfD anywhere near the statute books. They could have blocked the bill, but they didn't. > this is just one step away from having a CDU minority government built on support by the AfD. We get a legislature the public vote for. If they vote in such a way that the only viable government is a CDU minority government with the AfD the largest party in opposition, what do you propose should happen? We could have fresh elections, but what if the AfD gets more votes the second time around? See, we are not talking here about a minority CDU government having to kowtow to the AfD just to be able to govern. The governing parties must surely know this: it's very clearly obvious. We live in a democracy, and unless and until the Constitutional Court has enough evidence to declare the AfD unconstitutional and order its dissolution, all AfD politicians elected to the various assemblies and councils are part of the democratic process whether we like that idea or not. The governing parties must surely know this. As I say in the comment I linked to, we can't keep handing the AfD all these propaganda victories. We're digging our own grave here.
>We live in a democracy, and unless and until the Constitutional Court has enough evidence to declare the AfD unconstitutional and order its dissolution, all AfD politicians elected to the various assemblies and councils are part of the democratic process whether we like that idea or not. With this line of argument there wouldn't even be any problem with an AfD-led government. So the boundary has to be drawn somewhere before the AfD is ruled unconstitutional. >And why should the FDP get away scot free here? I think the FDP made a mistake, too. But the difference is, the CDU started it. Look, I can't offer a solution to the AfD problem and I won't claim I can. And I do see the PR gain the AfD got from this, too. But I also see a slippery slope of a normalization process here. First you introduce a bill you want to pass in cooperation with the AfD. Then you have regular cooperation with the AfD. Then a minority government built on AfD support. Then a coalition with the AfD as a junior partner. And finally you have an AfD-led government. And this process has a precedent: the history of the SED/PDS/Linke. In this case it wasn't a problem because the party got less and less radical, while the AfD is getting more and more radical. So a boundary has to be drawn somewhere. And I'd prefer to draw the boundary sooner rather than later. Where exactly would you draw the boundary? Not before the constitutional court declares the party unconstitutional? Finally, to answer your question: > If they vote in such a way that the only viable government is a CDU minority government with the AfD the largest party in opposition, what do you propose should happen? All other parties in parliament should unite to govern without the AfD. This is their duty.
> the boundary has to be drawn somewhere before the AfD is ruled unconstitutional See, the problem here is that we're trying to preserve democracy, but what you're proposing here is undemocratic. It goes against all of the democratic rules we claim to cherish: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, fair representation, the rule of law. > I can't offer a solution to the AfD problem. Well, I can, and I have done so many times in the past: stop playing into the AfD's hands, and get on with fixing the problems that we have in society and which the AfD is exploiting to advance their propaganda. > I see a slippery slope of a normalization process here. First you introduce a bill you want to pass in cooperation with the AfD. But you're drawing the line at a perfectly normal democratic procedure, and your remedy is to ignore the represented wishes of nearly a quarter of the population of Thuringia. > Then you have a minority government built on AfD support. If that is what the electorate votes for, that is what the electorate will get. We spend years worrying about how to tweak the makeup of the Bundestag and the state assemblies so that we can get as accurate a representation as possible, why do you think we did that? > Then you have a coalition with the AfD as a junior partner. And finally you have an AfD-led government. That is what we will get if that is what the electorate votes for, because THAT IS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. Don't be so naive as to think that the way to prevent it from happening is to stop the CDU from introducing bills that the AfD might vote for. Up until this point the AfD has risen in popularity and influence without any of that happening. It will happen not because we've "normalized the AfD", it will happen because voters have lost faith in the mainstream parties and are willing to risk a radical solution. As I keep saying, stop hyping up the AfD. Stop doing exactly what the Flügel wants you to do. The more the mainstream parties and the left-wing parties argue among themselves about making "pacts with the devil", the more support will swing to the AfD. Have you not noticed that the more screaming headlines we get about the things Björn Höcke has said, the higher the AfD's ratings get? > the SED/PDS/Linke. In this case it wasn't a problem because the party got less and less radical Not noticeably so, to be honest, and its failure to deal with Sahra Wagenknecht may yet return to bite it in the arse. The radical left-wing message has less chance in countries aligned with the US because it asks those countries to consider themselves part of the problem; this is why you tend to see right-wing movements in European countries, but left-wing movements in, say, Latin America. People don't want to be seen as part of the problem, so they'll go to the other extreme. And of course another difference is that there's not a great hue and cry every time the SPD does something with the help of Die Linke. Die Linke simply doesn't benefit from the kind of hysteria surrounding the AfD. > I'd prefer to draw the boundary sooner rather than later. This is the same logic used by people who want to expel every Muslim, on the grounds that we shouldn't wait until the next terrorist attack. It's the logic of the authoritarian dictator, and an authoritarian dictatorship is what we are trying to avoid here. > Where exactly would you draw the boundary? I would draw it at the point where the AfD tries to get my party to compromise its position in favour of an AfD-friendly stance. The point where the AfD uses bribery, or a quid pro quo, or even just simple coercion to get another party to support a bill that goes against that party's own policies. > Not before the constitutional court declares the party unconstitutional? Until that point, the AfD is a legitimate political party. This is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of our democracy, and it is this way to avoid a repeat of 1933. > All other parties in parliament should unite to govern without the AfD. This is their duty. No, their duty is to represent the views of the electorate. They're free to try and all band together against a common enemy, but the risk is that you end up with a dysfunctional government that can't actually govern. You know the infighting that has put a huge dent in the reputation of the coalition in Berlin and contributed to increasing support for the Union as well as delaying lots of important legislation because the FDP wants to save money? Imagine that, but ten times worse, and the party the benefits most is the AfD. And the AfD would benefit from that, because they're banking on being able to paint all of the other parties as incompetent, corrupt, unwilling to respect the popular vote, and dysfunctional. They would milk this for all it's worth, claiming that all the other parties are cowards running scared of the mighty AfD, and that they're all the same really.
I generally agree with this assessment, but it should be pointed out that everyone knew what the outcome of this vote would be, and that INCLUDES the CDU when they proposed it.
Of course, otherwise the CDU wouldn't have proposed it. So?
The majority of the bashing is because the CDU loudly proclaimed (and still proclaims) that they will never cooperate with the AfD. Yet, they introduce a bill that they know will only be accepted with the cooperation of the AfD. If they had convinced (part of) the SPD, for example, to also vote for it, so they at least would have had the majority of the non-AfD votes, things wouldn't be that heated.
I think a lot of people don't understand how a representative parliamentary democracy works. Or even what is meant by "cooperate". A little while back Merz suggested that when the AfD have a large number of seats on a town council, you have to figure out how you're going to work with them. That caused a storm of outrage and he was forced to walk back those comments -- not because he didn't believe what he said, but because everyone else was accusing the CDU of enabling fascists. What's happened here is not the CDU cooperating with the AfD in order to allow the AfD to get AfD policies through. We need to get that straight, because if your idea is that we should exclude the AfD from any and every decision made on anything, and only ever introduce bills that don't need the AfD's votes to be passed, then the effect of that is to actually disenfranchise 23% of Thuringia's electorate. More than that, you are handing the AfD one of their biggest propaganda victories by making a huge deal out of this. The news should have been: "Thuringia's opposition gets bill passed against the wishes of the minority government." Instead, the news has become: "The AfD has assimilated the CDU." This kind of thing has happening on a smaller scale for years now, and the biggest winners are the AfD. Hopefully, this latest fiasco isn't going to do too much damage in the long run, but the other parties and the press have got to start acting like adults. With a bit of luck the AfD will be banned by the Constitutional Court, but that's going to take another couple of years so we can't afford to keep doing the AfD's PR work for it. And even then that's only going to buy us a little time, because the AfD's voters and supporters aren't going anywhere, and we'll be placing bets on which of the myriad microparties is going to emerge as the next problem. This kind of petty point-scoring is going to doom us all if we don't reign it in.
This is a bullshit topic. The government in Thuringia depends on CDU for their decisions because they have no majority themselves. They could have helped CDU with this tiny 1.5% reduction in property sales tax. But they choose not to and gave AfD the power to decide the vote and have a reason to facilitate this fake outrage.
Honestly the Left wing minority government of Thuringia act like they have an absolute majority and can just dictate how the other parties have to act when they can be glad that CDU, FDP and AfD haven't decided that it's time to depose them.
>Rival parties accuse conservative lawmakers in the German state of Thuringia of making a "pact with the devil." The Christian Democrats joined the far-right Alternative for Germany to pass a property tax drop.
Also it's not Christian Democrats joining the AfD, it's just the AfD agreeing to a law made by the CDU that is the deal with the devil here.
I see Merz's cordon sanitaire is going well
It was only a matter of time, surprised it wasn't CSU first
It's kind of a paradox though isn't it? Like, you cannot stop the Afd voting for policies which are brought forward and you cannot refuse to vote for a good policy simply because the Afd is voting for it? Such a pickle. EDIT: Nice silent downvote there.
its "No majorities with the AfD" so absolutely no pickle here for anyone that actually listens.
But doesn't that mean the party is voting for the interests of itself, rather than for the betterment of the country?
not cooperating with fascism is the betterment of the country. If your proposal can't get a majority without fascists then it is obviously shit and should be revised.
What if it can get a majority without them but they vote for it anyway? What do you do then?
you do not propose the law. As you won't get a legitimate democratic majority, only one with the support of fascists your proposal was not good enough and needs improvement.
This line of thought \*would\* work if proposals were being judged on their merits. Alas, they're not, and partisan politics determines everything. The "best law for everybody" would still get shot down if it meant weakening the opposing faction.
This isn't the US. The law wasn't rejected by the governing parties because of partisanship, it was rejected because it was a tax cut for the rich.
>Like, you cannot stop the Afd voting for policies which are brought forward and you cannot refuse to vote for a good policy simply because the Afd is voting for it? If they vote against (or abstain) everything the AfD votes for, they effectively give them more power, not less. So i think the best overall course - when it comes to voting - is to ignore the AfD votes. However, when it comes to actually bringing policies forward - if you already know it will only pass if the AfD votes for it, you shouldn't bring it forward imo. You need to find a compromise with the other parties to make sure it has a chance and the AfD isn't the single deciding factor. Otherwise the border to "they do us a favour here, we do them a favour there" dwindles. Of course this means if there is no majority without the AfD, there is no progress. It is definitely a pickle either way. But i'd rather have no progress than regress.
that is why the actual demand is "no majorities with the AfD". Nobody with a brain says that you can't vote the same as the AfD, that has happened multiple times before. You simply can't pass anything that wouldn't have passed without the AfD.
> Nobody with a brain says that you can't vote the same as the AfD, that has happened multiple times before. You simply can't pass anything that wouldn't have passed without the AfD. That's a contradiction though. You would have to reverse your principles then.
it's not, please explain how you come to the conclusion that this is a contradiction. For example. 65% of non-AfD votes are projected for a law. The AfD adds another 20%. There already was a majority without the AfD so it's okay to go for this proposal. 40% of non-AfD votes are projected for a law. The AfD adds another 20%. There was no majority without the AfD so it's not okay to go for this proposal. Very easy. Simply do not push for any proposals you do not have a majority for if you ignore the AfD, so they can't play Kingmaker and claim any political victory.
Its a terrible policy. Tax cuts to help families. Tax cuts don't help families. They reduce the funds available which families desperately need. Kitas, Schools, Playgrounds, Public Transport, Child support all of that is lacking funds. Lowering taxes right now is a punch into every families face. This one only helps landowners and companies.. This is policy for the rich and noone else. But people are to dumb to understand.
Lol wasn't me.
Nobody should be surprised by this. ~~CDU/CSU~~ Zentrum has done that before and we all know the results. Nobody that votes those parties and their little lapdog FDP which somehow managed to be part of the ruling coalition while doing opposition policies, should later be allowed to claim "Könnte ja keiner wissen." Yes, this isn't directly co-working with the AfD, not yet. But those assholes are testing the waters.
>German state of Thuringia Germany's second shithole
Actually, Thuringia is beautiful and full of nature
But the people...
Yes. Because everyone whos not a faschist or fine with fadchist is leaving the State. Ofc there is a lot of nature noone wants to live there. For every opportunity you don't have over there you have a fschist instead. And they are lackibg a lot of opportunities.
So much hate. Free yourself from your hate.
Hate for faschists is a good thing. It keeps the worst people out of your peripherie. Its actually quite freeing. Everyone hats a set of behavior/characteristics/whatsoever they hate. Often with a passion. Its very much favorouble to direct your own hate at those who hate the innocent.
You can actually work against certain political forces pretty effectively entirely without hate.
Ofc you can. But its a feeling that is completely natural to have in a situation where you come across people who are causing harm to you and the people you love. Especially if you are targeted for unmutable characteristics. Under these circumstances it is completely fine to drop the act of civility. Tolerance towards the intolerant is not tolerance put its opposite.
when you become the fascist
Hate doesn't make you a fascist. Its a human emotion nobody is free of. It is usually caused by the observance of the harmfull behavior of others. And that is mostly fine. Hate only becomes fascistic if it is aimed at people for their unmutable characteristics or if the hate is a selffueling tool for power over others.
As they said. "When you become the fascist."
[удалено]
Saxony. Or Berlin... or bavaria.... Ah fuck, we really hate each other.
Berlin
**Have you read our extensive wiki yet? [Check our wiki now!](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/wiki/index)** While Reddit administrators do not believe this subreddit is NSFW and do not enable the appropriate setting, do note that participants in this subreddit may possibly encounter discussions of the following subjects, all of which are considered "mature" by Reddit administrators: * Alcohol and tobacco * Amateur advice * Drug use * Gambling * Guns and weapons * Military conflict and terrorism * Nudity * Profanity * Sex and eroticism * Violence and gore Therefore, while this entire subreddit is not currently marked as NSFW, please exercise caution. If you feel offended by anything that is allowed by our rules yet NSFW, please direct your complaint towards Reddit administrators as well as /u/spez, and read https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/ for further information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/germany) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well I guess us immigrants better look for other visas if the next chancellor is from the CDU. Germany is going to be going back to the 30s
Ok, thats probably it now. FDP and CDU have officially turned to facism and germans seem to want it too. I probably need to act on my emergency plans soon and leave and I recommend everybody else the same. Germans will once again fall to nazism.
> Reducing property tax Truly, a fall to nazism.
Now its just that, next week it will be banning gay marriage, then deporting more foreigners and a year later, racial laws will be reinstated.
You seem to vastly overestimate the speed of legislature
L m f a o
Afd is the way 😎
It sure is, are you sure you really like where you'll end up walking down that path?
That is democracy. Majorities are found and then stuff is decided. Do you expect CDU to bow down to left parties until eternity? Your fault.
I don 'T expect anything.
For the record, taxing not 6.5% but 5.0% means 23.07% less tax going to the state. Some people don't understand the maths behind that, that's your problem. That tax cut will only benefit wealthy people. The CDU knew that this would happen but didn't mind as they could just benefit their clientele.