My blogger friends over at Anglofritz in Berlin are depressed because German politics are so dull. There are no German Barack Obamas to pull Germans out of their somnolence:
"German politics today appear dull and lacklustre when compared to
the American revival of democratic participation in recent weeks.
There are five parties who strategize about how to block each other.
Their profiles are waning while Merkel stands guard as the gatekeeper
of mediation. What Germany direly needs are politicians with big ideas
that reach beyond greater exports and talk about what people feel and
want. Someone who stands up for their beliefs, is steadfast, honest and
authentic."
Let’s face it, Angela Merkel is not the most charismatic leader. And the opposition? Kurt Beck comes across as your average Stammtisch blowhard. Only Oscar Lafontaine and Gregor Gysi of the dreaded LINKE (LEFT party) exude a modicum of charisma.
On the other hand, most Americans would gladly trade the excitement of the presidential race for the dullness of Germany’s Sozialstaat: good, affordable health care, solid infrastructure – including a functioning mass transit system, decent schools, and a higher per-capita affluence. Oh, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. It may, however, require true inspirational leadership to keep this Sozialstaat from unraveling.
0 comment
So should Merkel lose a few pounds and get a face lift? Would Germany then have a more exciting and glamourous image?
I’m very excited about Obama, but charisma should not come at the expense of substance.
I agreed with this part of the linked post
“German democracy is healthy, yes, people vote and political discussions are common in everyday life. Voter turnout is solid during general elections. Yet, the majority of politicians in today’s Grand Coalition are lawyers! That doesn’t mean these lawyers don’t work hard, although I do wonder about the diversity gap.”
The posters should note that most US Senators are also lawyers.
The 2-party system in the United States is not doing a good job at politically educating the American people. Unlike, say, the Green party, American parties aren’t founded upon core values or principles. Their ideology is amorphous, to the point where they are ultimately 2 organs of a state apparatus, offering the people 2 choices when many more are needed.
Obama-mania is, to a large extent, driven by emotion. It’s the job of progessives to make sure the Obama campaign becomes an organ for social justice, as the campaign is pretty much our best hope at the moment. But if such a thing occurs it will be in spite of, rather than because of, the state of American political discourse.
Indeed, Scott. I was wondering why leftists were backing him. It’s in order to get into
power. Duh. I can be so stupid sometimes. He seems like a better bet than Hillary Clinton or Edwards. I am charisma-proof at my age, so his cuteness compared to Hillary does not move me, but I know that most would prefer to run and play with him instead of sitting up straight and minding their manners with Hillary.
No need to turn your heat down and put on a sweater. It’s morning in America!
Well, I can think of a number of individuals that I’d rather see get the nomination than Barack Obama. Not because I dislike Obama (he may be the most appealing Democratic presidential candidate since…when? Bobby Kennedy?), but simply because Obama is not battle-tested at a national level. I’d prefer someone who has actually led the opposition to Bush’s worst policies and taken political risks to protect liberal values (by that I mean Russ Feingold).
But based on that criteria, Obama still beats Clinton. I’m confident Clinton means well and would make a fine president. But Iraq/Iran is the most important issue facing the next admin, and Clinton and her advisers have done very little to promote sane diplomacy or ensure oversight of our military. Obama, at least, has said and is saying the right things. Granted, the concrete differences between their actual proposals are thin, but there seems good reason to believe an Obama presidency would inaugurate a fresh slate for diplomacy.
The other reason to favor Obama is (as you note) related to attaining power–there are good arguments to be made that Obama is more electable. Naturally, there are good electability arguments to be made for Clinton as well, but Obama’s likability and the degree of hostility to Clinton cannot be easily discounted.
Finally, the nation already set a bad precedent electing Bush’s son, now it is in danger of electing Clinton’s wife, however appealing or well qualified she is.
Naturally any analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two excellent candidates requires some hair-splitting. I just know I’ll have strong opinions in favor of the Democratic nominee, whoever that person turns otu to be.
Obama has been talking about his ideas for years, most notably in his speech in 2004 on the Senate floor. Btw, I was not aware of the fact that so many politicians, even in the US, are lawyers. @Hattie, what is charisma proof? The last German chancellor worth noting in terms of charisma and change was Willy Brandt. His famous “knee fall” in Warsaw opened up relations with the eastern bloc. I think Obama has a similar charismatic power to change America’s image in the world. Others will want change as well!
@Gerd,
Nice reference: just as Willy Brandt transformed the image of postwar (West) Germany in the world, so does Obama have the ability to do the same for America.
Whether conservative or liberal, Americans want to be proud of their country again. Obama holds out this promise – which explains his enormous cross-over appeal.