What a spectacle (Part 1)
- Bernd Liske
- 1 day ago
- 7 min read
A dazzling performance by the German Bundestag ensemble
The subject of this three-part article is the effort to get to the heart of various aspects: the actions of the members of the German Bundestag and the political parties – as exemplified by the session on January 31 – the causes and extent of the migration crisis, the motions of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, the attacks in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg, and what voters will actually be deciding on February 23.
Let us first turn to the performance of the members of parliament on January 31 in the German Bundestag (1, 2) – in a more or less successful adaptation of a theater review of Richard Strauss' opera Salome at the Vienna State Opera on January 19, 2020.
We want big things, encounter small things, and make ourselves small.
We encounter the big, make it small to appear big.
"At the end of the debate in the Bundestag, no one has anything in their hands," said ZDF: No party appeared enthusiastic as the winner – apart from the jubilant Die Linke, which also made a graceful contribution but did not seem to understand the game in all its complexity – and yet it was a worthy conclusion to a magnificent six-hour spectacle. Although no one left the stage in a blood-soaked negligee, no one held the severed head of their adversary in their hands, the way this heroic epic was choreographed deserves the utmost admiration. The ensemble complemented each other in wonderful harmony: sometimes practical, sometimes philosophical, sometimes desiring common ground, sometimes attacking, sometimes insulting and then reacting sensitively, each gave the other space to develop and provided the notes to seamlessly add another facet to the play. Everyone was allowed to be a hero and serve their voter base.
The performance had a surprise in store right from the first sentence: Thorsten Frei requested an initial 30-minute break – which then turned into three and a half hours. The ensuing emptiness allowed the audience to breathe in the grandeur of the Bundestag stage and philosophize in quiet contemplation about the meaning of meaning. Time flew by until Rolf Mützenich the Wise stepped up to the lectern. It was wonderful how he philosophized about the emperor's beard, and when he pointed out, with reference to the Weimar Republic, that "authoritarian thinking had never completely disappeared," he offered a wonderful insight into Germany in its current state. How he concluded "It's not too late. The Fall will accompany them forever. But the gate to hell – yes, I say it – the gate to hell can still be closed together," sent a shiver down one's spine.
Then Friedrich Merz stepped up to the podium and channeled Konrad Adenauer: "When others believe you are finished, that is when you must really begin." He virtuosically continued the game he had already begun, supplementing the migration debate with the AfD in order to create even more emotional highlights: These were gratefully received by the following performers. Sometimes with a reserved attitude, then again with the ups and downs of his voice and his measured, but then expansive, gestures, he captivated the audience. With his thesis of "daily gang rapes taking place among asylum seekers," he showed himself capable of artistically distorting reality—which primarily identifies Germans as perpetrators—but also of stirring up xenophobia in order to emphasize the relevance of his proposals: At that moment, he probably did not think of Section 130 of the German Criminal Code. His remark at the end that people expect solutions to be found leads to the assumption that he might believe that people do not want theater as it was performed that day, but with his convincing performance, he contributed to the effort to prevent this from happening.
No sooner had he finished his part than the play offered another highlight: Annalena Baerbock stepped up to the lectern. She is a singer who not only embodies a role, but merges with it and always mercilessly seeks out extremes on stage. Entering the stage in a pastel pink dress, embodying compassion, empathy, purity, openness, thoughtfulness, and girlishness, she skillfully uses her voice to contrast and stir up the audience. Her physicality is never an end in itself, but always serves to illuminate the character she portrays in all her facets, and her vocal performance complements this perfectly. Her voice is not only a pleasure in itself—the girlishness always in mind—but is also used intelligently. The way she hisses with a mixture of defiance and unease or oscillates between sweetness and bitterness in the scene is a great art of performance. While she was convincing in terms of content with her statement "That we are sliding into this completely fact-free discussion," the last minutes of her speech at the lectern and her subsequent reply to a remark by Thorsten Frei were pure revelation – if you enjoy rebelliousness and bickering.
This was followed by the appearance of the gray eminence Wolfgang Kubicki. He scored points with his effort to play theater in the sense that dignity should not be neglected, and began with a statement that this article will also pursue further on: "Dear colleagues, I am not entirely sure whether we are all well advised to constantly engage in an anti-AfD debate when it comes to the question of how we can control migration." His fact-filled, precise, and pointed argumentation was a highlight of the debate in terms of content, which was effectively conveyed by the tone of his presentation.
Then came the appearance of Bernd Baumann, who played the counterpart to the rest of the ensemble perfectly. In The Reality of the MATRIX – and Where is Neo? A Plea for the Basic Law, I characterized the failure of the old parties – but also the social constitution – as responsible for the development of the AfD, and the theater on that day was also suitable for further strengthening it, so that it will not be discussed further here. However, he made a point with the rhetorical question of why the murders in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg inspired the CDU/CSU to take action, and this will be discussed further below.
Of the other performers, Sahra Wagenknecht should be mentioned in conclusion. In contrast to Annalena Baerbock's girlishness, embodying classic beauty and an emancipated woman, she followed in Annalena Baerbock's footsteps in the performance, contributing to what she perceived as a "hysterical debate." Perhaps she wanted to prove her ability to work in a team and not dominate with her analytical mind. Of the supporting actors, Heidi Reichinnick deserves a mention, who played her role as a rebel so perfectly that one wondered why Die Linke otherwise comes across as so dull, so superficial, so small-minded, so conformist.
Probably moved by their own virtuoso performance, some of the participants gave solo performances in the hours and days that followed. It is safe to assume that there will be further performances in the run-up to election day. On ARD's BRENNPUNKT program that evening, Friedrich Merz endeavored to emphasize the significance of the performance in the hours before – so that voters would really recognize what was most pressing for them: "This week, the differences have become clear. Especially on the issue that concerns people in Germany the most: namely, migration and immigration policy." Sahra Wagenknecht also continued to prove herself a worthy member of the ensemble. Instead of catering to the desire of millions to get to the root of the problems and offer comprehensive and sustainable solutions, she sang the aria of a referendum on migration policy: The fact that there is no legal basis for this underscores the artistic – and unrealistic – content of the entire performance.
The effort to highlight the migration crisis as a defining issue in the election campaign—while stirring up sentiment against the AfD and indulging in Russophobia—is unmistakable. This raises several questions that will be explored below:
Do voters also consider this to be the most relevant issue, or are there more important issues?
Is it correct to assume that Russia is responsible for the migration crisis?
If Russia is not responsible, what are the causes and how significant are they in order to conclude that it is necessary to address the issue and determine how this should be done?
Why are all parties striving to give this issue importance?
Should we be concerned that there were two attacks so close to the election?
What moral can be derived from the results of the analysis?
Election research
One can make a living from fortune telling in this world, but not from telling the truth.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742–1799)
According to the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen research group, which conducted a survey for ZDF-Politbarometer on the issues that would be most important in the federal election, the results are quite different from what one might conclude from the parties' sudden (?) commitment to solving the migration crisis. According to the survey, the most important issue by far is war and security (48 percent). This is followed by the economy (41 percent) and social justice (40 percent). Far behind are refugees and asylum (27 percent). My independent thesis—which refers to what is most important to voters and not to what they themselves consider important—is thus also close to reality, although I have combined the second and third most important issues into one topic here.
It should not go unmentioned, however, that efforts to suggest that the issue of migration will be decisive in the federal election have gained traction and are being communicated extensively. In its January 31 issue, SPIEGEL magazine subtly reinterprets the findings of the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen research group:
Interesting: Although the migration debate is once again at the top of people's concerns, it seems to play a rather minor role in most people's voting decisions.
In the ARD DeutschlandTrend survey of January 9, migration ranks first (37 percent), followed by the economy (34 percent). Far behind are war and peace (14 percent), the environment and climate (13 percent), and (!!!) social injustice (11 percent). The "current" situation is subtly packaged in Deutschlandfunk on February 5 at 6:50 a.m.: "Asylum and migration, the economy, followed some distance behind by war and peace, and the environment and climate. According to current polls, these are the important political issues. One topic is missing from this list, even though it is a burning issue for many families month after month : the rise in rents." The RTL/ntv trend barometer survey conducted by FORSA on February 4 takes the cake. It shows that protecting democracy and combating right-wing extremism are the most important issues for voters (62 percent!!!). This is followed by economic development (55 percent), crime and internal security (49 percent), Germany's external security (44 percent), and immigration and refugees (36 percent). It is quite obvious that surveys can be commissioned with a desired outcome and then used politically and in the media as desired. Since the peace movement in Germany has become marginalized and certainly does not have a significant lobby, it seems reasonable to assume that the results of the ZDF Politbarometer, which is conducted by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen research group, are the most reliable.
