German Politics Is Baffling. Here's How to Understand It | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

German Politics Is Baffling. Here’s How to Understand It

Published

 on

Two regional ballots next month will mark the unofficial start of Germany’s campaign sprint to the federal election on Sep. 26. That in turn will be the occasion for a new leader to take over from Angela Merkel, after her 16 years as chancellor of the European Union’s largest country and economy. In short: It’s an important year.

Unfortunately, this also means that international readers interested in European politics are in for some confusion and frustration in the coming months. At least that’s my extrapolation from the two other German elections I covered, in 2013 and 2017. How German politics works, what matters and what doesn’t, and how policy might eventually change: All of this is hard to divine, much less convey, especially to “Anglo-Saxons.”

Technically, the German system isn’t uniquely baffling. Austria and Belgium, for example, are also federal states with parliamentary systems, proportional representation, and lots of quirky conventions on top. But the policy machine of Berlin, thanks to its relative weight in the EU and beyond, is seen as more important to suss out than, say, Vienna’s.

The difficulties start with personalities and style. In the U.S., U.K. or France, politicians (with monikers like “The Donald,” “BoJo,” “Jupiter,” etc.) tend to be colorful and the political options (left, right, populist, internationalist) on full display. By contrast, Germany’s mainstream politicians tend to be so drab and woolly you’d think they were doing it on purpose.

They actually might be. Historians such as Oxford University’s Timothy Garton Ash think Germans distrust passion and soaring oratory in politics because it still evokes the Nazi era. “Because of Hitler, the palette of contemporary German political rhetoric is deliberately narrow, cautious and boring,” he’s written.

The result is politicians like Armin Laschet, the new boss of the center-right Christian Democrats, or Olaf Scholz, the candidate for the center-left Social Democrats. Both have the charisma of a middle-management bookkeeper and more arms (“On the one hand … and on the other …”) than the Indian goddess Durga.

Their hairsplitting centrism has another source, however. It’s the centrality of coalitions in the German system. This means that any politician must collaborate in some form with adversaries. Scholz, for example, is in Merkel’s cabinet as finance minister. So he’s running against the Christian Democrats of Laschet and Merkel even as he’s governing with them. That’s confusing even for Germans.

Moreover, coalition geometry has become more complicated in the past generation. Postwar West Germany in effect had three political blocs: the Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party, with the color black; the Social Democrats, in red; and the pro-business Free Democrats, with yellow.

In the 1980s the environmental Greens joined this system. Then, after reunification, the descendants of East Germany’s communists entered parliament, later calling themselves The Left and picking a darker hue of red. More recently, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) joined in, with blue (though it’s a pariah that none of the other parties will partner with).

That leaves a lot of potential combinations in both the federal parliament and the 16 regional assemblies. And this is where German wonkery becomes incomprehensible to outsiders. The argot teems with color puns: A red-yellow-green coalition is a traffic light, a black-green one a kiwifruit, black-yellow-green would be Jamaica (after that country’s flag), and so on.

The most important thing to watch for this year is the next color combination in the federal government. A red-red-green government — that is, an all-left union of Social Democrats, The Left and Greens — would amount to a mini-revolution, and a disaster. But there appears to be no mathematical chance of that, because polls consistently show the three left parties jointly getting fewer than half the Bundestag seats.

This all but assures that the center-right blacks, as the strongest bloc, will lead a coalition. And their body language of late has leaned toward teaming up with the increasingly popular Greens to replace the Social Democrats. So the next German government could be a kiwifruit.

There was a time when this combination would have been unthinkable — the blacks’ original base was the clergy, the Greens were tree-hugging, free-loving hippies. These days, however, this coalition would be much less shocking. And that has to do with Germany’s federalism.

Germany’s second (but not “upper” in the Anglo-Saxon sense) house is the Bundesrat, or “federal council.” Unlike the U.S. Senate with its individually elected members, this assembly seats the 16 regional governments. But those administrations are also composed of coalitions, so that the color palette looks even more motley (see below).

#lazy-img-368073189:beforepadding-top:64.10899964144855%;

As you can see, the three major camps are already collaborating with one another somewhere. So they have an incentive to avoid alienating each other too much. Moreover, each is present in enough regional governments to form potential majorities in the second chamber, with the power to block bills coming in from the Bundestag. This is another reason why policy change in Germany is usually incremental. As any painter knows, a palette in which all colors are mixed eventually becomes mud-brown.

So what will happen in the run-up to Sep. 26? The main relay events will be several state elections, starting on March 14 with Baden-Wuerttemberg (currently governed by a kiwifruit coalition, but with the Greens in the lead) and Rhineland-Palatinate (a traffic light). In theory, these ballots could change the balance of power in the Bundesrat, but that looks unlikely.

In practice, they’ll be seen as early barometers of the national mood. But the analysis tends to get obtuse. Every state is different — especially between what used to be West and East Germany — and nobody really knows whether any given regional ballot says more about local or federal politics.

Worse, there’s no equivalent of America’s midterms — one big day with many simultaneous elections — that could serve as a reliable bellwether. Instead, there’s a “drip drip” of little results, says Jeff Rathke, president of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies in Washington.

My advice is to keep squinting at the overall hue of the national palette. It’ll always tend toward mud-brown. But a black-green pattern is also becoming discernable. As you see in the Bundesrat chart, the two are already cohabiting monogamously in two state governments and in a menage-a-trois in three more. So they’re used to each other.

If Christian Democrats and Greens convince voters that they can finally reconcile ecology (Greens) and economy (blacks), they could together dominate the zeitgeist for years. They’d have to compromise on a lot, but that’s what German politicians do.

Overall, I’d say that German policy will become slightly more fiscally dovish, ecologically hawkish, pro-European and anti-Russian. As ever, there will be no sudden moves or big leaps — unless, of course, the world around Germany changes radically, which can’t be ruled out.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Andreas Kluth at akluth1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.net

Source: – Bloomberg

Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version