For a year and a half they only talked about one subject. This topic then played no role in the election campaign. It seemed as if the parties had agreed not to talk about Covid and the pandemic, because you can only lose then. But we are not conspiracy theorists. Let us add: Not every concentrated action has to be agreed, sometimes tacit consensus is enough. This consensus can be seen in the current programs of the parties.
Let’s take the FDP program. Look, a whole passage about fishing. “We Free Democrats see fishing as an important bond with nature. The associations and members are the local environmentalists who take care of the healthy flora and fauna of our waters. At the same time, it is also a hobby that maintains a community across all ages and cultures. (…) We trust the well-trained angler, who can best assess whether a caught fish has to be removed or can be released again. (…) From our point of view, fishing is not a counterpart to nature conservation goals. That is why we reject blanket bans and restrictions on fishing (…). “
This is not just about four million anglers in Germany speaking from the heart, here we not only have the FDP as a better green party in front of us, here society itself is basically imagined according to the model of a fishing club. It’s the opposite of the stressful society of the last year and a half. In the election manifesto of the FDP there is not even a separate section on Covid. It is precisely this party that is associated with pressing questions about freedom rights under the conditions of a pandemic situation.
They are connected thanks to a peasant trick: the MP Kubicki kept talking about what the party chairman Lindner was silent about. The thing worked. The Greens had even more to lose. Annalena Baerbock made the maximum consensus remark that she does not exclude the compulsory vaccination for “individual professional groups”, that’s it. Basically, please only about climate change. The naturopathic, vaccine-skeptical milieu, which would have to be close to the Greens, could initially be dispensed with with election forecasts of 30 percent. Can be given to the smallest parties and the group of non-voters. The same applies to the CDU and CSU, who have given their contingent of Corona skeptics to the free voters.
In addition, one had the impression that Jens Spahn was banned from appearing in the election campaign and, of course, did not belong to this “future team”, which has almost been forgotten again. Did that include any pandemic expert? Think for a minute, no. And the left? A few sensible sentences that the socially disadvantaged suffer the most from Corona. Nothing fundamental, about the pharmaceutical industry, for example. If too many partisans were put off, then it would be better to fight for a radical peace policy that unites. The success was manageable.
What does it trigger in you when a topic that has been said for a year and a half becomes it? All change, simply does not play a role in the election campaign? Well, it makes me feel like I’m getting … This feeling is widespread in our society and leads to a bad mentality of distrust. So I dim my anger down to a normal cynicism (“A coward is a politician whose instinct for self-preservation functions normally”) and think of the understandable fear of change that characterized this election campaign.
Also in the fact that he has not gotten as dirty as one had predicted, but rather mild in dealing, as if Scholz and Friends were dealing with a group of convalescent who will soon be released from the hospital (still a little pale, but smiling again).
I read somewhere that the choice between Scholz and Laschet was about the question of which of the two can convey more plausibly that everything remains the same under him with maximum insight into change (the climate!). That may work out now.
Imagine, however, if the choice had been in lockdown.