I think of Germany in the night, and all my sleep is put to flight (Heinrich Heine, Germany: A Winter’s Tale)

My poor country is not only facing economic decline and grappling with the return of fascism, it is now also enduring public humiliation at the hands of its former American allies. The helplessness with which German politicians respond to these attacks and interference in our domestic affairs is staggering. “That is not appropriate,” outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz lets Vice President Vance know after his insults. Seriously? This is how you talk to a child who just snatched another’s ice cream—hardly how you address a politician expressing support for far-right, anti-immigration parties and meddling in your country’s elections, in other words: who deliberately degrades you in front of the whole world. 

Trump and Vance are not known for their decorum. Their crude behavior—mocking the disabled, insulting childless women, sympathizing with fascists, etc.—is well-documented. It is part of their brand, so no one should be surprised.  Moreover, Trump never hid his political intentions. NATO? Only if we pay up. But of all people, those who celebrated the murderous mob that stormed the Capitol in 2020 to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s victory—in other words, those who supported an attack on democracy itself—are now supposed to lecture us on the meaning of democracy? Quite apart from the fact that nowhere in the liberal democratic world is “one person, one vote” more disregarded than in the U.S. Beyond Senate elections, gerrymandering distorts districts, and polling site closures target Black communities.

Let there be no misunderstanding: I can’t deny a certain satisfaction in seeing the German know-it-alls getting a taste of their own medicine from an American head know-it-all. And yes, there’s plenty to criticize about my country—the infamous “nipple policy” in German clubs and concert halls, for instance, which bans cisgender men from baring their chests on stage while allowing queer men to do so. Or the attempts to silence (‘cancel’) critics of Israel—for instance by revoking an already promised professorship, as happened to Nancy Fraser, or by trying to chase a speaker like Slavoj Žižek off the stage. One could also call the so-called “firewall” problematic, as excluding the AfD and its voters from public debate is fundamentally undemocratic. But the fact that we are making an effort to push back against the racism and xenophobia peddled by some representatives of this very party; that there’s a willingness to curb the wild insults and deranged fake news on social media and, if necessary, hold those responsible legally accountable? That, to me, is anything but undemocratic. If no one else will explain it to the new law enforcement official (‘sheriff’), I’m happy to do so: The “sacred” idea of democracy is precisely not about indulging every whim of ‘the people.’ The idea is rather to protect the people from themselves if necessary. There’s no need to reach for the Nazi cudgel and point to the Third Reich to understand this—a reference to Brexit is enough.

The real issue is something else entirely. German politicians should, first and foremost, urgently develop a U.S. strategy—because suddenly, to put it in the dreary official language of the EU and the German Foreign Ministry, they are dealing with a “systemic rival“ that needs to be “de-risked.” Under the umbrella of the U.S. and NATO, we can no longer feel secure. If the alliance endures, Trump’s approach will turn from a partnership based on shared values to one driven by demands for protection, where loyalty is leveraged for personal gain rather than mutual security. In this new dynamic, the concept of collective defense will be twisted into a transactional relationship, where support comes at a high cost and in a context of ever-shifting alliances. In this sense, Vance is right—the danger indeed comes from within. But the Germans continue to submissively present themselves as loyal partners—even friends. 

You know the saying: “Whoever has friends like these needs no enemies.” Much more meaningful, it seems to me, is a reevaluation of the supposed enemy: China. Ironically, Vance didn’t allow any questions after his Munich speech—yet his counterpart Wang Yi, the autocrat from China, did.

I completely agree with him: China is indeed an ‘AfD’—an alternative for Germany. It’s high time that German politicians realize this. Okay, I get it—the political program of China differs from the ideal of constitutional democracy, fair enough. But what is possible in the U.S.—allowing a private entrepreneur to regulate state authorities, including those that might threaten his own business interests—is unthinkable in China. So is the rise of a figure like Donald Trump. The ideal of meritocracy demands institutionally recognized achievements and qualifications. It was egalitarianism that made a ruler like Trump possible—a system that elevated someone not for merit but for his ability to pander to the masses. 

At least in this regard, I still trust Olaf Scholz the most, as he has wisely disregarded the nonsense of a ‘value-oriented’  foreign policy in his decisions. No, Scholz doesn’t have a “China problem.” He has a China solution. He just needs to finally own up to it. 

As a role model, none other than a fellow party member comes to mind: the late, great Helmut Schmidt, who wisely warned more than twenty years ago: “China is not just a huge market but also a major economic competitor. The sooner we adjust to the new situation, the better for our future.” It may already be too late for that. As another saying goes, “Those who come too late are punished by life.” Or by their American allies. But better late than never.

Schmidt, by the way, not only cautioned Europeans against inflating their own importance (“They are not as important as they hope. And Europe can become even less relevant than it already is.”). He was not only critical of the humanitarian idealism that took over with the Greens—an idealism that is now completely helpless and bewildered in the face of the new reality shaped by the American cowboys. He also was a staunch advocate for non-interference in China’s affairs, firmly upholding the principle of sovereignty. And you can probably guess which country consistently disregards this principle. A little hint: It’s neither Russia nor China.

Unfortunately, Scholz is on his way out. All signs point to Merz as Germany’s new sheriff; he was critical of the Chancellor’s decision to allow a Chinese state-owned company to purchase a stake in the Hamburg port, has advocated for improved coordination with major European allies to rethink ties with Beijing, and he consistently called China “an increasing threat to [German] security”—everything in line with US directives. However, now that the Americans are pulling back from their European village, they’re losing the leverage that allowed them to enforce this so far. If Merz is truly the pragmatist and realist he claims to be, he should seize this opportunity. And after striking a deal that involves the exchange of highly advanced Chinese technology—let’s say, securing cutting-edge battery technologies, electric vehicle solutions, or advanced semiconductor production capabilities—he might want to thank Vance: “Thanks for pushing us right into the arms of your enemy!”

Image: Kathy, created with the assistance of OpenAI’s GPT-4 model

COMMENTS

@cdu1964

Oh, this is delicious. The author is in full meltdown mode, clutching pearls over Vance’s bluntness while completely missing the point. Germans love lecturing the world on democracy—until someone dares to call them out. Vance didn’t “humiliate” Germany; he just said what plenty of Europeans really think but are too scared to say out loud. And guess what? The shock isn’t that he meddled—it’s that he told the truth.

The pearl-clutching over “far-right, anti-immigration” politics is just classic. Maybe, just maybe, Germans are waking up to the reality that unchecked migration has consequences? The AfD isn’t rising in a vacuum. But sure, let’s pretend that standing up to mass migration is somehow an attack on democracy while cozying up to China—a real authoritarian state.

The people are tired of being ruled by out-of-touch elites who sneer at them while handing their country over to open-borders chaos. If anything, Vance just did what every good Western hero does—rolled into town and told the cowards to grow a spine. And clearly, they’re rattled.

@problematicfratz

While the comment is certainly spirited, it tends to simplify a much more complex issue. The idea that Vance’s remarks were merely “truth-telling” overlooks the nuanced realities of international diplomacy, where open confrontation can often be less productive than nuanced dialogue. It’s easy to point fingers at “out-of-touch elites” or to paint a one-dimensional picture of migration and sovereignty. However, the situation in Germany is not as clear-cut as a Western showdown between good and bad guys. Politics, especially in a democracy, is about balance—between national interests and international relations, between security concerns and humanitarian obligations.

Furthermore, the tendency to frame Vance’s intervention as a heroic act of truth-telling risks oversimplifying the broader political context. It implies that the “people” are always in the right and the elites are always wrong, which is a dangerous reduction of democracy. The role of leadership is not just to voice the loudest truths, but to build consensus and create thoughtful, long-term solutions that respect the complexities of both domestic and global concerns.

Immigration is critical to Germany’s future, not just economically, but demographically. With an aging population and declining birth rates, the country is facing a looming crisis in terms of workforce sustainability and social security systems. Immigrants fill essential roles in the economy, contribute to cultural diversity, and help ensure that Germany remains competitive on the global stage. The country’s ability to manage immigration effectively and humanely will be key to navigating its future challenges. It’s worth noting that a balanced immigration policy, which respects human dignity while meeting national needs, is far more sustainable in the long term than exclusionary rhetoric, which can alienate potential contributors to society.

However, it is also essential to consider the broader implications of foreign interference in a nation’s elections. Democracy rests on the sovereignty of its people to make decisions about their future without undue external influence. When politicians from other countries—especially those with ideologically opposing agendas—intervene in domestic affairs or attempt to sway public opinion, they undermine the integrity of the electoral process. It’s not simply about disagreeing with the political direction of another country; it’s about respecting the right of a sovereign state to determine its own political course. Such interference can create division, distort public discourse, and erode trust in democratic institutions.

Last but not least, Germany, like any democratic nation, must guard its electoral independence from external influence. The concern is not just about foreign meddling in elections; it’s about the erosion of democratic norms that allow voters to make informed choices without external pressure or manipulation.