When Germans celebrate Octoberfest, oddly, in late September,
they will also go to the polls in an election that has been marked
by oddities.
First there are the political billboards, which are racy by any
standard — American or German. Perhaps even French. The Greens
have a poster of two topless same-sex couples (male and female)
pinching each other’s nipples with the message: “Equal rights for
lesbians, gays and heteros.” Not to be outdone, the youth wing of
liberal Free Democrats, likely partners for the conservatives, are
running an ad of a rather youngish looking woman holding up a
ballot beneath the slogan: “Stick it in.”
Then there’s the distinctly American presidential campaign style
of current chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, who also happens to be
running on some anti-American positions. Irony aside, such
personality-driven politics are a new development in Germany, where
the parties traditionally have been more important than their
candidates. In addition to Schroeder’s style, the entire campaign
is a little too “presidential” for many German Pooh-Bahs, who see
it as another example of American cultural imperialism. Both the
candidates and the public were downright confused over how to
respond during the August 25 debate, the first in the history of
modern Germany.
Another curiosity is the party’s position on taxes. The
conservatives seem more interested in how to offer tax breaks in
the most equitable way possible rather than delivering them.
Meanwhile, Schroeder’s position on corporate taxes is the more
business friendly one. As a result, it’s plausible to conclude that
the Social Democrats are the tax-cutting party.
But with al Qaeda still not vanquished and Saddam stockpiling
chemistry sets, these types of distinctions are mere parlor talk.
What’s most worrisome are the candidate’s position on Iraq. If
Schroeder pulls out a victory on September 22, it will largely be a
result of his aggressive anti-Iraq stance, say German political
analysts.
It all started when Schroeder kicked off his re-election
campaign with the unusual move of criticizing a U.S. policy that
hadn’t really been articulated. Six weeks out and eight points
down, Chancellor Schroeder announced that Germany would “not make
itself available for an adventure,” in Iraq. Since then, he has
hardened his position, declaring his opposition even if the U.N.
approves. It is now a major theme, if not the theme, of his
campaign.
This tack took many in Washington by surprise. After all,
Schroeder did pledge “unconditional solidarity” immediately after
9/11. For a man who prides himself on his subtle suits, his ploy
was rather obvious. With unemployment settling in at 10 percent,
railing against America’s perceived position on Iraq (already
widely unpopular here) was an act of desperation. Even so, voters
responded and in the next poll, his party jumped six points.
The conservative candidate, Edmund Stoiber, not wanting to be
left in the pro-Bush lurch, eventually struck a similar note, but
has since toned it down. In their debate last Sunday, he took
Schroeder to task for his very own brand of unilateralism.
Stoiber’s stance is that Germany should cling to the European
Union’s position (whatever that may be) and that Germany should no
more “go it alone” with its foreign policy than America should “go
it alone” against Iraq. Stoiber seemed to be implying that
Schroeder is a German version of Bush; voters beware.
Contrast this maneuvering with the political scene in Britain,
where public support for action against Iraq is just as thin. Even
though a third of his MPs are against him, Prime Minister Tony
Blair shows no sign of weakening his resolve; he is now the
effective bridge between America and world that he long promised to
be. The Tory leader, Ian Duncan Smith, may even be more
pro-American than Blair, falling much closer to Richard Perle than
Richard Armitage.
As the White House takes stock of it “allies,” unpleasant
conclusions are difficult to avoid. It can’t be good news that
Germany, traditionally America’s second closest ally in NATO — a
country the U.S. guarded against Communism — is deeply reluctant
to help America protect the world from Iraqi-fueled terrorism. When
a candidate sees his polls numbers rise because of his anti-U.S
(and vaguely anti-Bush) rhetoric, it is cause for concern.
This is not say that Schroeder’s gambit will be enough to put
him over the top. His economic record could send him to the very
unemployment lines his party has failed to shorten.
It is inevitable that if a center-right coalition does win in
Germany, some will explain the victory as the latest domino of
conservative governments snaking across Europe. In the last two
years, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands
have all seen center-right governments come to power. The only
aberration has been Britain, where Blair has all but dismantled the
Tory opposition.
Should Schroeder lose, is it a cause for a conservative
celebration? Yes and no. On economic issues, Stoiber is a sort of
Richard Nixon wage-and-price-controls conservative. Add to that, he
is positively timid about standing up to Germany’s powerful unions,
a necessity if the country’s Byzantine labor laws are to be
reformed — the key actually to invigorating the economy.
In regards to Iraq, it may be even more troublesome when a
conservative — not hidebound by the rearguard left or committed
peaceniks in his coalition — dabbles in anti-U.S. rhetoric.
On the other hand, the PDS (the former communists) may not even
get the requisite five percent to enter parliament. And the Greens
are expected to win fewer seats than in 1998. Compare these overall
declines with the supposed right-wing surge in France’s Le Pen
fiasco. In France, hard left parties actually saw a measurable net
increase from pervious totals. Only because these leftist parties
were divided did Le Pen make it to the final ballot. The situation
in Germany is quite different — the left is on the decline.
Aside from Iraq, the crucial differences between the major
candidates are stylistic, not substantive. Schroeder is witty and
energetic. He is deeply tanned. He is on his fourth wife. By
contrast, Stoiber is grandfatherly — a politician that makes Al
Gore look lively. Coming from the southern state of Bavaria, he
draws sneers from urbane northerners who like to think of him as a
country hillbilly.
Hillbilly or not, Bavaria is Stoiber’s ace. As premier, he
transformed Bavaria into Germany’s hottest hi-tech zone, with the
second lowest unemployment numbers in Germany. Whether his formula
of “laptops and Lederhosen” — technological subsidies tempered by
cultural conservatism — will work throughout Germany remains to be
seen. Lederhosen in the Catholic south is one thing. How that garb
will contend with topless lesbians up north is another matter.
If anything, a Stoiber victory may demonstrate two things. One,
Germany isn’t quite ready for an American-style campaign —
Schroeder’s personality politics. Two, the electorate cares more
about its own chancellor’s handling of the unemployment crisis than
about Bush’s handling of Iraq.
A Schroeder victory would be much more ominous. It would show
that the German people remain susceptible to having their concern
about the economy distracted, and having their attention directed
to another problem, one that is unrelated and in many ways
symbolic. This seems all too familiar.
