2023-05-18 14:53:07
The federal chairwoman of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, Ricarda Lang, explained the scandal surrounding State Secretary Graichen to Markus Lanz. Some thoughts.
Ricarda Lang at Markus Lanz on May 17, 2023ZDF Mediathek/Screenshot
“Why is there a rush to the heating law?” That was one of the key questions that Markus Lanz asked the Green party leader, Ricarda Lang, last night – and also received an answer. “Why are you overtaxing the country?” he wanted to know. There was talk of a crowbar in the implementation of the heating law and the insistence on heat pumps for the country. After all, Germany is only responsible for two percent of CO2 emissions, according to the memory. Climate change will be decided elsewhere, for example in Latin America, said Lanz.
“Germany has a role model function,” said Ricarda Lang. As an industrialized country, Germany must lead the way and show other nations that it is possible to escape from fossil fuels. And of course you have to look at this change pragmatically and also ensure social balance and relief.
The dialectic of the green
Of course, Ricarda Lang received a lot of criticism for such sentences. She drives some people nuts. Kerstin Münstermann, a journalist from the Rheinische Post, for example, who formulated her criticism in a more diplomatic manner and took offense at the communication of the Greens in general. The Bremen election was a disaster for the Greens because the people would not support their “crowbar” policy. Whether vaccination, heat pump or climate change: The Greens are too apodictic. Markus Lanz and Kerstin Münstermann agreed on that.
If you zoom out a little and take a closer look at the debate regarding the heat pump, Graichen’s resignation, and the Green Party’s heating law, you come across contradictions or, to put it another way, ironic twists in the story. Because the Greens, one of the most interesting parties in the Federal Republic, which triggers the majority of Germans as much as the vegan currywurst in the canteen, like to get tangled up in dialectical one-way streets, which are the focus of many dissertations in intellectual history, but in everyday life often fall under the rug. The Greens have something Mephistophelic regarding them and are reminiscent of the famous verses by Goethe, which describe moral dialectics as follows: “I am part of that power / That always wants evil and always creates good.”
Why didn’t Robert Habeck apologize?
With the Greens, one might luridly say, it’s exactly the opposite. They want the good, create (by the way) the bad. You don’t have to ask Richard David Precht first to understand the essence of this thought. Patrick Graichen’s late retirement is a perfect example. The force that wants good and creates evil by striving for the right thing, i.e. full gas storage and the green heat transition, does not recognize the parallels to British succession regulations in its own personnel policy, is blind to its own failure, the moral one Misconduct in personnel planning and is also deaf to democratic criticism, which Robert Habeck also ignores, as if it were a big blind spot in the green self-image. Whoever wants the good is infallible. Only the Bremen defeat might remind the Greens that they have to be measured by their own moral standards. Every McDonald’s bag on the train, every mafia-like occupation can be fatal.
On Wednesday, Robert Habeck finally fired his Minister of State, failing to recognize that had he been fired quickly, he would have walked away the winner. What was missing was an apology. Incidentally, Kai Diekmann recalled this in the Berliner Zeitung: As editor-in-chief of Bild, he saw politicians come and go. He asked us why politicians so rarely apologized. Because: “There is nothing Germans like better than to forgive someone. The moment you forgive someone, you raise yourself morally,” said Kai Diekmann. Why didn’t Robert Habeck do that? Why didn’t he apologize for the Graichen affair and thus take account of the moral claims of the Greens? Maybe it’s a tip for next time.
“Trigger” the Greens
But back to the Greens and dialectical contradictions. Anyone who observes the vehemence with which the Greens are pushing through the heating law will not be able to avoid really believing Ricarda Lang’s sentences, which she also repeated with Markus Lanz: The Greens don’t look at poll numbers, they don’t look at what the people want , if they decide to translate their heating law into reality as early as next year. They think ideologically, of the good, of the right thing, and not pragmatically – and thereby, willy-nilly, do something that they criticize elsewhere.
More concretely: If you take a closer look, the Greens dictate something to the people, convinced that it is the right thing, the moral good thing. And if you look at the heating law, then it is actually, from a scientific point of view, a real law. It will help Germany to achieve its climate goals. It will be a role model for the world. In this respect, it is paradoxical when Annalena Baerbock travels to China and reads the Chinese government the riot act. A government that also knows better what the people want and therefore builds houses without referendums and chases train routes through neighborhoods, not caring what the people want or where they complain.
Because both the Greens and the Chinese government know that the people are also brakemen, complicated and fickle. It looks to today, not tomorrow. Admittedly, somewhat undemocratic, but sometimes morally correct, at least that is the conviction of many governments. A somewhat crude comparison, but the parallels are there and they are also the reason why the Greens “trigger” the population so much.
Do you have feedback? Write us! [email protected]
1684421933
#heat #pump #explains #lot #Greens