The approval ratings for the Greens and their candidate for chancellor Annalena Baerbock are in free fall. This is not surprising. It is rather surprising that the Greens are surprised by this. Because outside the green bubble, it was probably clear to most that Baerbock is not a good candidate. The worm must taste to the fish, and not to the angler. Baerbock’s tragicomic nomination is typical of a party that does not manage to look beyond the narrow limits of its filter bubble and also has in mind the interests of those who do not belong to the fixed electorate anyway. You can’t win elections like this.
The Hamburg folk actress Heidi Kabel once said:
“Emancipation is only complete when a totally incapable woman has moved into a responsible position.”
Kabel died in 2010 and could not have guessed that eleven years later emancipation would actually be completed according to its definition.
In the case of the Greens, there is a statute which states that if there are two applicants of different sex for a post, the woman must have the first right of access. Now you certainly don’t have to be a fan of Robert Habeck to at least admit that he would undoubtedly have been the better choice for purely campaign-strategic reasons. But the Greens really wanted a woman as a top candidate and they now have her. Since I am neither a member nor a sympathiser of this party, I am not entitled to criticise it. On the other hand, the Greens are also not entitled to criticize that their untalented candidate does not arrive outside their own bubble. Baerbock’s nomination stands for precisely the self-deception that has long characterized the Greens.
In addition to the FDP, there is probably no other party that represents the interests of its own clientele in such a focused way, the FDP makes no secret of this, while the Greens bathe in complacency and self-righteousness claim and reality are far apart. Another formerly clever woman, Jutta Ditfurth, once said:
“All parties fool their voters, but there is no party that has such a grandiose difference between its image and its reality as the Greens”.
There is nothing to add to this and from this point of view, Annalena Baerbock is even the ideal candidate for this party, self-righteous with a self-confidence that is as exuberant as it is unfounded. Such people tend to fail.
Now the Greens sense a campaign against their candidate. And for once it is not Russia, China, the Muslim, but the political opponent including their journalistic arm that is responsible for this. Did the Greens seriously think they would fall for their only campaign strategy “Who criticizes Annalena is an old white sexist man”? Something like this may work in the green filter bubble. However, the real world works a little differently.
Nevertheless, the form of criticism seems strange, of course. After the debate about Baerbock’s “sexed-up” curriculum vitae, the critics now pounce on her gruesome book and find passages that the author has apparently taken one to one from other sources.
It would be rather surprising if one would not find such duplicates in this book, which consists of 80 percent of empty words and fragments of text from Sunday speeches. Has not every empty sentence been said and written at least once? It is rather incomprehensible why Baerbock wrote this unambitious and superfluous book at all and then published it just in time for the “election campaign”. You can only come up with such ideas if you live mentally in a safe place that shields you from all criticism; like an untalented child whose cacophonic flute playing is praised by all adults out of misunderstood consideration over the green clover. You can do that. But if the parents of this unmusical child then grind in front of a larger audience you have to expect criticism.
The Greens are different. Their self-deception goes so far that they do not even realize that their candidate for chancellor is not criticized only out of pure politeness in their own bubble. If you are confronted with this self-deception in the election campaign and later at the polls, that is a lesson.
That the Greens learn from this lesson is unlikely. Instead, they prefer to see themselves as victims of campaigns and build conspiracy theories. Because what must not be, can not be. The obvious idea that you have nominated a completely unsuitable candidate, although politically correct, but strategically stupid, will not come up.