Split and command

The speeches at Christmas and New Year would have been an opportunity to reconcile at least a small part of the population divided by government policy. This opportunity was not taken, on the contrary: in her contributions to the holidays, Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel and federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier practiced precisely the alleged Unambiguousness and the consequent denunciation of dissenters, which have already caused such deep rifts.

The speeches also once again cultivate the principle of “stop the thief”: those responsible for a health system that has reached its limits through privatization are now shifting this responsibility to “all of us” – because “we” are unreasonable.

Responsible leaders would have left the path of phrases and blame for this particular turn of the year at least for a short time and extended a hand to the critics – if not out of conviction, but for the sake of social peace. However, the continued practice of the blanket denigration of dissenters by the media and politics instead found a new climax in the symbolically charged speeches. They were an expression of a false uncompromising attitude that can only be maintained through a massive media campaign.

Citizens and their “wrong views”

It would have been obligatory to approach those citizens who are shocked by the corona policy and who have now been insulted for months by the media and politicians for their “wrong views”. This would also apply if the analysis on Corona were indeed as clear as many editors write on a daily basis. However, since this “clarity” is also based on highly controversial values such as the Daily “new infections”, a commitment to political bridge-building applies all the more.

In addition to the false clarity, the aggressiveness against critics and the attempt to blame the consequences of one’s own policies on an “undisciplined” population, the hints for the future are also interesting: dress warmly, it sounds here between the lines: there will be hard and protracted upheavals. It is also these potential future prospects of a problematic and long – term transformation of society that worry many citizens-sometimes more than wearing masks in the present. Karl Lauterbach has just given new fodder to these concerns about a perpetuation of a special state under changing and melodious reasons in a commentary:

“Thus, we need measures to tackle climate change that are analogous to the restrictions on personal freedom in pandemic control.”

Merkel and the dissenters

What German Chancellor Angela Merkel thinks of dissenters, she already said a few weeks ago in scandalous openness, as media reported: since “the usual reasoning” does not help, supporters of conspiracy ideologies are “a special challenge” for politics, according to Merkel. “This may also be a task for psychologists.“There is a real refusal of discussion among followers of such thought patterns.” This paragraph of Merkel is fundamentally wrong: on the one hand, the indirect designation of critics as crazy is sharply to be rejected. On the other hand, it is above all politics and large media that refuse to discuss: often the demand for a debate is already dismissed by this side as heresy to the corona ideology. In her speech on New Year, Merkel has now added one more:

“I can only imagine how bitter it must feel for those who are grieving for a loved one because of Corona or who are struggling with the After-Effects of a disease when some incorrigible people deny and deny the Virus. Conspiracy theories are not only untrue and dangerous, they are also cynical and cruel to these people.”

Few critics of the Corona policy “deny” the Virus. And those who have actually acted cynically and cruelly in recent months will perhaps show a retrospective. At the moment, the power of interpretation of the defenders of the Corona policy is too strong to even begin with a rational assessment of the Situation. Merkel, however, is already securing against such a review: “we had to make decisions that we could only hope would prove to be right at first.”

This period of political innocence based on “ignorance” existed – but it is long gone. In the meantime, the decisions could very well be rationally reviewed. But already the demand for it is strongly fought by the media and politically. And so Merkel can continue to shift responsibility, for example for a health system broken by a neoliberal policy and therefore reaching the limits, to “all of us” :

“We have the most effective means besides the vaccine in our own hands, by adhering to the rules, each and every one of us. We all together.”

Steinmeier:” deniers “against” reasonable"

Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier-a key player in the introduction of Hartz IV and the war in Yugoslavia-also did not prove to be a bridge builder in his Christmas speech. Although he said misleadingly: “especially in these days we experience: the Virus does not drive us apart. On the contrary, it brings us together.“However, this” moving together " is still outstanding – Steinmeier did not support it with his speech. On the contrary, he also describes critics as “deniers” of danger and supporters of the government as " reasonable”:

“Those who deny the danger of the Virus, are often particularly loud. But the sensible are the vast majority.”

This paragraph can be described as pure optimism for purpose, backed up with questionable claims – because neither has the situation been adequately disputed nor is the Situation shared:

“In a time of uncertainty, we have learned that we can trust our democracy. We fought about the right way – and then shared decisions.”

Silence would be irresponsible

Serious critics do not deny the Virus. These numerous serious critics of Corona policy question whether the measures applied are appropriate or whether there are other ways that may be more socially balanced and medically effective. They are concerned that control and surveillance practices will be introduced in the shadow of the “pandemic"panic and will never be abolished again. They feel that dealing with the children is absolutely unacceptable. They wonder where all the money for the” rescue " comes from and who will pay it back. They relate the potential danger of the Virus and the panic reactions to their previous experience with similar incidents. Some critics of the “pandemic” policy go much further and, in view of Corona’s controversial potential for danger, ask about the “true” motives for the radical current political decisions.

All these urgent questions about the Corona complex cannot and should not be answered here. But putting them is not only legitimate: not putting them would be irresponsible.