Why are talk shows – still – so popular? The program planners’ response that the country’s important political debates take place there, allowing citizens to form political opinions, can be ignored; viewers already know better. You listen to Caren Miosga, Markus Lanz, Hart aber fair, Maischberger, or, as on Thursday night, Maybrit Illner, because you want to get a little pumped up.
People want to get annoyed at political staffers for uttering empty sentences, for dodging moderator questions, or simply for not understanding them and perhaps not wanting to understand them. And in all this anger, you wish there was someone sitting at the table who would broadcast your anger live on television, who would compensate for the helplessness you feel in the face of political events. Either way, this will make you a public nuisance.
Is that all?
Sometimes it’s a good idea to distance yourself from the typical reception patterns on these talk shows. Maybrit Illner’s round was titled “No recovery, no confidence – a black and red test?” is one such case. Not because the country’s important political debates actually took place on this show, but because it became clear ex negativo what was wrong with those debates and what was missing from them.
The background to the program is the coalition’s recent disputes – conscription, pension reform, the heating law – in which Illner is not the only one reminded of the gray days of the traffic light coalition. It was clear to all participants during the broadcast that the coalition leaders had agreed on several controversial points, which may also be due to the large scope of the debt, as journalist Robin Alexander noted at the start. But is that enough?
More military training in the Bundeswehr, cheaper electricity for industry, lower air ticket taxes – are these the major reforms that many are now calling for and the Chancellor has promised? The four discussion participants were grouped based on how they should answer the question, which Illner repeated several times. Therefore, they represent the forefront of today’s political society.
When in doubt, let the industry die
One of the groups present at the negotiations, Robin Alexander, should be mentioned here, but the most important is economist and member of the supervisory board of Siemens Energy Veronika Grimm, insisting that what has been decided so far and in fact what else is planned by the coalition is far from enough to solve the problems of the German economic model. Grimm stressed that despite high government spending, growth is expected to be weak in the coming year and we still face “major challenges”.
What exactly are these challenges – and how can they be overcome? For the groups mentioned above, Germany must carry out rescue and deregulation. The country is too complicated, the states are too big, the laws are too fragmented, the taxes are too high and – in Grimm’s words – the employees are too “expensive,” at least when previous demographic trends will soon be fully reflected in social security contributions. Weak industries should not be subsidized; if in doubt, they should be left to die. The problem: Reforms like these are drastic. Anyone who tries to do this has a lot to expect from citizens.
For Reiner Haseloff, Prime Minister of Saxony-Anhalt for the CDU since 2011, this last point is unacceptable. Presented several times by the moderator as a “pragmatist” and head of government of a country with an important industrial region, he shared Grimm’s basic description of the problem – “We have become mediocrity everywhere” – but not their enthusiasm for structural change. We must try by all means to keep industry in this country afloat, including through subsidies if necessary.
EU, migrants and climate protection
Unlike Grimm, he doesn’t think much of massive pension cuts or a much higher retirement age – simply because he belongs to the group of people who have to put these unreasonable demands on election posters. But how else do you avoid the “solvency” that the Prime Minister also predicts will occur? You make cuts elsewhere – to the detriment of others.
Haseloff only really went on the offensive last night when he complained about the aid Germany provides abroad, complained about the EU or its expensive climate protection (even CO2 prices are not safe from his critics), or directly referred to the social benefits that migrants would receive. The pressure for reform, which can be summarized by this group’s position, must be redirected – regardless of whether the bill is successful in terms of the budget or not, and regardless of what the related policies mean in terms of climate protection or global politics.
Wouldn’t it be more practical if we didn’t undertake any major reforms at all? Alexander Schweitzer, the Social Democratic Prime Minister of Rhineland-Pfalz, seemed to choose the third direction last night. Important things have been achieved in the coalition and we will now increase the pace. The future of the welfare state? Export growth model crisis? “Something has to change,” but please “without scaring people.” No one has to tighten their belts here – neither locals nor foreigners. But there’s nothing to hope for either.
So what’s missing? A group, even a party, that is pushing for reform amidst a political crisis and offering more than just collective savings. Representatives of these groups were absent from Illner’s table – in part because there is no political movement that could fill this void in the country. Would it be better if they existed? This is the question that haunts the night in Illner – at least for those who can control their anger.
