As a reaction to attacks and a shift to the right, social policy and law enforcement must be massively strengthened. But these investments are expensive. Instead, the politicians responsible for divisions are now offering phrases of “solidarity”. But the time of warm words is over-Appeals will not hold society together.
After the terrible deeds of Hanau, our thoughts must be with the victims and their families. At the same time, however, an instrumentalization of the attack should be countered. This instrumentalization can currently be observed among those who, as those responsible for an anti-social and anti-state austerity policy, also bear a good part of the responsibility for an agitated and unsettled social mood. It is also and above all this mood of isolation and fear of descent that can encourage attacks by right-wing terrorists and psychopaths. The incitement of AfD personnel is to be combated. However, it can (still) be described as a Symptom rather than a cause. Compared to these verbal AfD outbursts, the profound and mass social upheavals that neoliberal political and media personnel have caused in recent decades are to be regarded as considerably more dramatic.
Fight against the right: moral preaching instead of investment
At the same time, the same decisive political personnel is to be blamed for a long-standing trivialization and procrastination of the right-wing terror danger. And in addition to this, the policy of cutting staff has led to a weakening of the police and judiciary. These serious failures at the social and criminal level are now apparently to be covered up by an extra portion of morality, as the quotes from leading politicians below show. The fight against racism must be fought on several levels: criminal, socio – political-and only then morally. The socio-political side has been dismantled, the criminal side by cuts as well. What remains for many politicians now is morality. This is understandable: investments in the welfare state and the judiciary are expensive – you get morality for free. In addition, this transfers one’s own responsibility to the citizens, who allegedly refuse to “finally get out of the comfort Zone"in the fight against the right.
Politicians cannot prevent all psychoses and not all lone wolves – but the socially agitated and unsettled mood that favors such acts cannot now be attributed to “relevant internet sites” by the politicians who have shaped the last decades. They have to take a good share of this on their own – together with the editors of large media, which have provided journalistic cover for a neoliberal weakening of the community and its base (the state).
A state capable of acting works against the right
The AfD and its ideas must be opposed. Here, however, there are no constantly repeated moral appeals. Rather, an economic policy that gives the state back its ability to act and a social policy that deserves this name would help here. In addition, the neoliberal character of the AfD program must be (repeatedly) exposed. And the police and judiciary must be lavishly equipped with resources and personnel in order to be able to meet their social obligations in law enforcement again. Other important aspects include investments in infrastructure and education, as well as reforms in the area of wages and Pensions.
Against this background, the current warm words of federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Chancellor Angela Merkel or the president of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen, about Hanau’s actions must be classified as hypocrisy.
The federal government ( … ) stands for rights and dignity
After the attack, Steinmeier called for social cohesion and civil courage: “we stand together as a society, we do not let ourselves be intimidated, we do not run apart. ( … ) Society must be united against hatred, racism and violence”. Steinmeier called on the citizens to"live consideration and solidarity”. This is the “strongest means against hatred,” he said. “Let us oppose it if the dignity of individuals or minorities in our country is taken away.“And then he also put the emphasis wrong on verbal (critical, but symptomatic) urges:
Let us pay attention to our language in politics, in the media, everywhere in society.
The president of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen, took the opportunity to promote the alleged fundamental values of EU policy. Thus, it is not the causal economic radical EU policy that is divisive, but the symptoms " incitement and violence":
The appalling act of Hanau stands fundamentally against all the fundamental values that make up the EU and of which we are justifiably proud. We resolutely oppose those who want to divide our societies with incitement and violence.
And also, Chancellor Angela Merkel saw no reason for self-criticism of a divisive policy – on the contrary:
The federal government and all state institutions stand for the rights and dignity of every person in our country. ( … ) We do not distinguish citizens by origin or Religion. We oppose with all our strength and determination those who are trying to divide Germany.
The right should distract from its own responsibility
These are just three examples of a widespread practice: pointing to “the right”, which is first a Symptom, is intended to distract from one’s own responsibility for social divisions. It is also suggested that the most serious split would be between “right” and “left” – and not between “top” and “bottom”. In the next few days, one will hear a plethora of such paltry moral exhortations to “the citizens” to “get up” at last. How many of these appeals will denounce social division? And the hypocrisy of the splitters? Will trade unions and” civil society “also retreat to Hanau on the fine-sounding but completely insufficient phrases of” Indivisible”?