Hello Rachel, I enjoy your essays on your US-local perspective on Germany and your thoughtful and measured commentary. It is interesting to me as someone who spent most of his adult life in Bavaria having left the UK in 1987 and left in 2014 only to return in 2025 from Ireland after all our children decided to return to the home of their birth. I will admit that had it not been for the children’s collective decision to leave Ireland (which I understood) I would not have chosen to return as, to quote my friend @timprice “Things are going to get worse before they deteriorate”. The AfD is a fascinating study in today’s environment of how a party not conforming to the left wing consensus political dogma will be systematically branded as right wing, Nazi, fascist, evil what have you simply for existing on the national-conservative spectrum outside of the Overton window.
An objective, non-hysterisized review of the party’s policy program which I have studied is exactly what a pre-Merkel CDU/CSU would have looked like with support from a healthy FDP. That the party exists at all is entirely the fault of Merkel’s proto-socialist, deeply irresponsible lurch to the left in a desparate attempt to outflank the Greens and her loss of control of the immigration narrative plus her economic mismanagement. Nothing in the AFD policy program warrants the opprobrium hurled at them by the establishment parties and their compliant propaganda machine. The Left know that any opening towards the AfD will doom them to political irrelevance so they play the only card they have namely that everyone who is not an international socialist must be a fascist. It is bullshit of course, but an east hand to play, at least whilst the economy is still functioning.
I am sure that there are a few unsavoury characters in the AfD just as there are rabid communists and eco terrorists in the established parties, but parties are not companies and can’t just fire people they don’t like, at least not without considerable effort.
So my response to Steinmeier’s intervention is that it was way out of line and in no way justified. It outs him as a political activist for the left as the real, factual constitutional threat from the AfD is a chimera and pure theatre on the part of the left wing political class performed for the reasons enunciated above.
I have spent my business life sorting out noise from signal and attempting to discern the motives of people protesting the loudest. As Shakespeare has Gertrude in Hamlet say “ The Lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Thanks, as a fellow American and watching what's happening at home I've been torn about this, but I've come to the same conclusion you have. What worries me most, though, is the Russian influence of the AFD and that they'll be a trojan horse for even more Russian meddling in Germany.
The AfD absolutely is a threat and not just to democracy. They are not what they seem. I tried to expose them myself and it gets pretty bad, but I barely even scratched the surface!
“The AfD is not a cause of Germany’s malaise, but a symptom.” It’s both, you surely know that. While rhetorically provocative, this is factually inaccurate. It strikes me as deeply problematic that one should push this narrative.
Fair enough. I take your point. I thought it was clear why “The AfD is not a cause of Germany’s malaise, but a symptom” is a false statement. A true statement might read, “the AfD is one cause of Germany’s malaise, it is also a symptom.” While less provocative, this is decidedly more accurate. Such accuracy is important, especially when the inaccurate statement rinses the hands of the AfD, who, I might note again, is a cause (not just a symptom) of this marauding malaise that I’ve been countenancing in Germany.
It is fine to point out a particular sentence in an article is provocative, inaccurate or even problematic, but it is generally good form to explain why it is considered such, so that we can all benefit from the wisdom.
I suspect that there are different malaises under consideration - the author may be referring to economic malaise driving people to support fringe parties. The commenter may be thinking of increase in anti-immigrant sentiment, that is being driven by those fringe parties.
Thanks for your comments. You both make good points and I think that, as a stand alone sentence, it's the most accurate to say that the AfD is not JUST one cause of Germany's malaise but also a symptom. The party reflects underlying frustrations, yet it also actively shapes the political climate, fostering distorted perceptions and driving concrete attitudes and actions (for example, anti-immigrant sentiment). That dynamic shouldn’t be downplayed or excused in any way. I was trying to tie the AfD back to the Trump analogy: they both emerged and gained strength amid growing issues economic insecurity, social fragmentation, and distrust in institutions. Their rise (like that of many populist movements) is evidence of a deeper societal discontent.
Hello Rachel, I enjoy your essays on your US-local perspective on Germany and your thoughtful and measured commentary. It is interesting to me as someone who spent most of his adult life in Bavaria having left the UK in 1987 and left in 2014 only to return in 2025 from Ireland after all our children decided to return to the home of their birth. I will admit that had it not been for the children’s collective decision to leave Ireland (which I understood) I would not have chosen to return as, to quote my friend @timprice “Things are going to get worse before they deteriorate”. The AfD is a fascinating study in today’s environment of how a party not conforming to the left wing consensus political dogma will be systematically branded as right wing, Nazi, fascist, evil what have you simply for existing on the national-conservative spectrum outside of the Overton window.
An objective, non-hysterisized review of the party’s policy program which I have studied is exactly what a pre-Merkel CDU/CSU would have looked like with support from a healthy FDP. That the party exists at all is entirely the fault of Merkel’s proto-socialist, deeply irresponsible lurch to the left in a desparate attempt to outflank the Greens and her loss of control of the immigration narrative plus her economic mismanagement. Nothing in the AFD policy program warrants the opprobrium hurled at them by the establishment parties and their compliant propaganda machine. The Left know that any opening towards the AfD will doom them to political irrelevance so they play the only card they have namely that everyone who is not an international socialist must be a fascist. It is bullshit of course, but an east hand to play, at least whilst the economy is still functioning.
I am sure that there are a few unsavoury characters in the AfD just as there are rabid communists and eco terrorists in the established parties, but parties are not companies and can’t just fire people they don’t like, at least not without considerable effort.
So my response to Steinmeier’s intervention is that it was way out of line and in no way justified. It outs him as a political activist for the left as the real, factual constitutional threat from the AfD is a chimera and pure theatre on the part of the left wing political class performed for the reasons enunciated above.
I have spent my business life sorting out noise from signal and attempting to discern the motives of people protesting the loudest. As Shakespeare has Gertrude in Hamlet say “ The Lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
I agree, and you express it better than I ever could. It's not democracy under threat, rather the existing parties who are threatened.
Thanks, as a fellow American and watching what's happening at home I've been torn about this, but I've come to the same conclusion you have. What worries me most, though, is the Russian influence of the AFD and that they'll be a trojan horse for even more Russian meddling in Germany.
The AfD absolutely is a threat and not just to democracy. They are not what they seem. I tried to expose them myself and it gets pretty bad, but I barely even scratched the surface!
“The AfD is not a cause of Germany’s malaise, but a symptom.” It’s both, you surely know that. While rhetorically provocative, this is factually inaccurate. It strikes me as deeply problematic that one should push this narrative.
Fair enough. I take your point. I thought it was clear why “The AfD is not a cause of Germany’s malaise, but a symptom” is a false statement. A true statement might read, “the AfD is one cause of Germany’s malaise, it is also a symptom.” While less provocative, this is decidedly more accurate. Such accuracy is important, especially when the inaccurate statement rinses the hands of the AfD, who, I might note again, is a cause (not just a symptom) of this marauding malaise that I’ve been countenancing in Germany.
It is fine to point out a particular sentence in an article is provocative, inaccurate or even problematic, but it is generally good form to explain why it is considered such, so that we can all benefit from the wisdom.
I suspect that there are different malaises under consideration - the author may be referring to economic malaise driving people to support fringe parties. The commenter may be thinking of increase in anti-immigrant sentiment, that is being driven by those fringe parties.
Thanks for your comments. You both make good points and I think that, as a stand alone sentence, it's the most accurate to say that the AfD is not JUST one cause of Germany's malaise but also a symptom. The party reflects underlying frustrations, yet it also actively shapes the political climate, fostering distorted perceptions and driving concrete attitudes and actions (for example, anti-immigrant sentiment). That dynamic shouldn’t be downplayed or excused in any way. I was trying to tie the AfD back to the Trump analogy: they both emerged and gained strength amid growing issues economic insecurity, social fragmentation, and distrust in institutions. Their rise (like that of many populist movements) is evidence of a deeper societal discontent.