The Schroeder-Fischer Legacy

Former German Chancellor Schroeder and Foreign Minister Fischer almost completely disappeared from the political radar just a couple of days after Angela Merkel and the Grand coalition of conservatives and social democrats took over the government.

The red-green coalition, which started in 1998 with the promise to change matters for good in Germany, all but failed in every respect.

Schroeder’s failure to lift Germany’s sluggish economic growth to at least average European levels weighs as much as the worsening unemployment figures. Not that a government can do much good for economic growth and job creation in a free market environment– but wasn’t it Schroeder-Fischer’s stated philosophy of close cooperation between government, unions and employer associations that was supposed to create job growth and economic fortunes for the German masses?

Well, it didn’t happen. The much touted fiscal stability, always promised for the very next year by Schroeder’s Finance Minister Eichel, never materialized. It wasn’t until after Schroeder’s retirement that the finance experts of the new government discovered an additional budget deficit to the tune of tens of billions of Euros.

Much ado was made in 1998 about a new era in environmental policies. After all, this – over two decades – was the cornerstone of the green party’s political platform. I guess one could easily agree even with proponents of Environmental Minister Trittin that the major impact of the red-green environmental policy lies in the gradual decline of nuclear energy in Germany and the massive subsidizing of energy from wind mills and solar technology. Why this would benefit the German economy and the German consumer, however, is open to discussion. While other European (and non-European) countries increasingly rely on cheap nuclear energy, Germany under Schroeder has decided to turn to expensive “alternative” energy sources – and to Russian gas. Also, as a result of the green party’s mullah-like opposition to genetic research, Germany now is probably the last place one would consider to start a bio-tech business.

Ray and I created this blog as a reaction to the unfortunate increase of anti-Americanism in the German media. This was paralleled and to a certain extent caused by the anti-American philosophies of Schroeder. During his entire career, Schroeder had turned a cold shoulder to American politics and to American politicians. Pre-1990, as Minister President of the state of Lower Saxony, Schroeder focused on warm relations with communist East Germany. No bad words to be heard from him on the many human rights abuses of the East German “government”. On the contrary, he actively tried to hinder investigations of refugee killings by East German border troops. As Chancellor, Schroeder pushed for a Franco-Allemand alliance to dominate the European Union – in a rather ridiculous attempt to counter American influence on world policy matters.

It is quite telling that Schroeder now wants “to learn English” as one of his post-Chancellor activities. Maybe as a lawyer looking for clients he may develop an interest in the American point of view.

Comments

[ErikEisel]

Yesterday, Instapundit gave credit to the Internet for taking down Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and the Canadian government (thanks to Ed from Captain's Quarters). Medienkritik played its own part (big or small, it's hard to tell) in taking down the Schroeder-Fischer government. I hope Instapundit gives you some credit for that, too. Your perspective on German politics has been essential, and has been echoed in parts of the American press, such as WSJ. You should take some satisfaction in your hard work.

[Axel_Bavaria]

""""""""""""""Much ado was made in 1998 about a new era in environmental policies. After all, this – over two decades – was the cornerstone of the green party’s political platform. I guess one could easily agree even with proponents of Environmental Minister Trittin that the major impact of the red-green environmental policy lies in the gradual decline of nuclear energy in Germany and the massive subsidizing of energy from wind mills and solar technology. Why this would benefit the German economy and the German consumer, however, is open to discussion"""""""""""""""

There's not much to discuss in this regard - it's just plain obvious.

Even the real discussion's conclusion, namely whether the sabotaging of Germany's nuclear energy combined with the highly subsidized "alternative energy" hype benefitted the environment is negative. It didn't save a single bird - to the contrary: The windmills are known as "bird-shredders" ... And what about CO2 ? I don't care much about it, but the Left and Greens at least pretend to do: Why didn't they acknowledge that nuclear energy was a completely CO2-neutral form of energy production, but damn it instead ? Nuclear energy is clean, safe, cheap, plenty ... what else could you wish for ? Yesterday I saw a documentation on TV, which covered scientists orking on ways to neutralize the radio-activity of nuclear waste ... they can already do it under lab circumstances, and it is just a matter of time until it will work on a large scale. Until then, it's safe to dispose off nuclear waste in all kinds of mines under Germany's soil, as even the ARD had to report in an issue of the "tagesschau" the other day ... until recently, only salt mines were deemed secure enough, but a new scientific study for the gov. revealed that granite mines and just about any other type of mine, if it only is far enough below the surface, will fit as well for the so-called "Endlagerung" ( final storage ) of nuclear waste; in some respects, materials other than salt even have tremendous advantages.

[Cousin Dave]

To add to what Axel wrote: One thing that everyone needs to remember is that the commercial pressurized-water reactors that are operating today are half-century-old designs. Modern technology can produce new designs that will create far less high-level waste in the first place, and be safer and more reliable to operate too.

[beimami]

The comments don't seem to becoming too fast on this post. That seemed surprising to me until I tried to gather my thoughts for my own comment. I would like to think that the departure of Schroeder and Fischer will result in a return to the good German-American relationship that I grew up with, but I am not all that certain. Schroeder and Fischer were elected and re-elected by the German people -- and nearly pulled off another electoral victory despite their obvious incompetence -- so it is difficult to believe that their exit will really make a big difference in that respect. Maybe that explains the lack of passion I feel with regard to their departure.

I suspect that the Medienkritik will have plenty to do for a long time to come.

[PacRim Jim]

This importance of their legacy is unclear, in view of the general ignorance of recent history exhibited by the German people.

[FranzisM]

"Also, as a result of the green party’s mullah-like opposition to genetic research, Germany now is probably the last place one would consider to start a bio-tech business."

Hmmmm, the mullahs of Iran are just as pro-biotech as pro-nuclear and even the world's GMO food pioneers.

The environmentalist idea that the natural virginity of the gene pool was to be protected against human manipulation efforts is based upon a profound misreading of the theory of evolution: nature knows no such thing as a master copy of the genetic code of a particular species. But paradoxically this misreading would be correct again for artificial species whose genetic code is intellectual property of a monopoly distributor: then there would be such a virginal master copy which would not evolve on its own such as the gene pool of a natural species.

The environmentalist belief that any genetic engineering was a violation of the intellectual property rights of God is a mirror image of the threat of biotechnology bringing human intellectual property rights into the language of the creation: to ensure the integrity of evolution, an open source obligation for genetic engineering would be sufficient.

[Solomon2]

What usually gets left out of the analysis of Germany's economic malaise is that the European monetary union has a lot to do with it -- that much is clear from the macroeconomic analysis of the situation. The nasty bit is that the Germans knew this would happen unless they enacted economic reforms - that is, loosten up their welfare state - soon after the Euro was introduced but have kept quiet about this for political purposes. Instead, they prefer to blame "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism and President Bush personally.

[Cousin Dave]

@Solomon2: You raise a good point. I can remember a day, and it wasn't all that long ago, when the deutschemark (apologies for the spelling) was regarded as one of the strongest currencies in the world. I always thought that Germany made a huge mistake when it signed on for the euro. But now I wonder: when that decision was made, was it because the people who made it saw down the road and they knew that economic decline was ahead? Did they think they were going to get some kind of free ride with the euro? If so, I think they were very badly mistaken -- a lot of other European countries signed on to the euro because they thought that Germany was going to give *them* a free ride!

[Pamela]

@Cousin Dave
>>But now I wonder: when that decision was made, was it because the people who made it saw down the road and they knew that economic decline was ahead?

That decision was made after World War I - yes, ONE, not WWII.

Go find the book "The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union" by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

It will make your hair fall out (that's my excuse anyway).

Richard is one of the writers over at EU Referendum

The book shouldn't be hard to find - the first edition came out in 2003 I think and there is a new edition just out covering the rejection of the Constitution.

[LC Mamapajamas]

@Axel_Bavaria: Yesterday I saw a documentation on TV, which covered scientists orking on ways to neutralize the radio-activity of nuclear waste ... they can already do it under lab circumstances, and it is just a matter of time until it will work on a large scale.

I've already mentioned this on the last Kyoto thread, but this really is NOT a good idea. A source with an energetic half-life measured in millenia is not a problem, it's an answer waiting for someone smart enough to ask the right questions. The idea of neutralizing this potential gold mine is as silly as the idea of a bunch of US greenies who want to pack nuclear waste into rockets and shoot it into the sun.

It needs to be stored until the right person asks the right questions about that long-term nuclear half-life.