It was not just the chilling wind that the Federal Minister of Finance had to contend with on the stage at the Brandenburg Gate. From the start, Christian Lindner had a tough time, thousands of farmers booed and whistled at the FDP politician.
At least: The protest against the only traffic-light minister, who – unlike Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) – faced the angry farmers, came from the front and was straightforward. And it was not comparable to what Lindner had to endure from the sidelines of the political field a day later.
Lindner stands up to the farmers – Luisa Neubauer finds it “pathetic”
The “Go away!” chorus of the farmers, which Lindner confronted, was followed by fierce verbal attacks from the left after the appearance of the traffic-light representative. Left Party leader Janine Wissler was so outraged that she even demanded Lindner’s resignation: “A Federal Minister who stands in front of protesting farmers and makes no single proposal to address their concerns, but instead incites against the unemployed and refugees, is not only rightly booed, but is also unbearable as a minister,” she told “Spiegel”. Lindner is trying to play people off against each other and incite them. This is “politically irresponsible and humanly disgusting,” Wissler continued.
Climate activist Luisa Neubauer also attacked Lindner’s appearance as “pathetic” and declared: “Lindner’s speech shows in every respect what a tremendous role polarized inciting political rhetoric plays. It is so dangerously inflammatory. We endure all of that, the right-wing incitement, the hatred, the death threats. Not for us, but for the constitutional compliance with global, democratic climate commitments.”
Incitement and hatred, political irresponsibility, polarization, and spinelessness – these were the most intense terms hurled at Lindner from the left after his appearance. But what had actually happened?
Lindner’s efforts seemed somewhat contrived and obsequious
The FDP politician had defended the reduction of diesel subsidies for farmers in his speech. The cut was necessary, everyone had to make a contribution in the current budget crisis. At the same time, there should be no “special sacrifice” for the farmers.
Lindner offered to talk “about the situation overall” with the farmers as well as about “excessive environmental standards”. At least, unlike the overwhelmed Scholz, he can claim to have laid out a thread of conversation again.
In his speech, the FDP leader also attacked climate activists and railed against citizens receiving citizen’s income who do not meet the requirements: “The climate activists have defaced the Brandenburg Gate. The farmers have honored the Brandenburg Gate,” he explained.
And: It annoys him, “that I as the hardworking middle class have to speak to you about cuts, while on the other hand in our country people get money for doing nothing.” It could no longer be ignored that people refused to work for money.
Lindner’s efforts to establish closeness to the farmers seemed somewhat contrived and obsequious at times: “I come from the Bergisches Land and I grew up next to forests, meadows, and fields,” he said. He is a hunter and when he cleaned out the horse stable, he was already exhausted. So he knows how hard the farmers work. But it all did not help: The farmers still booed at him.
Criticism from the left lacking its own arguments and sincerity
Lindner had the courage to face the farmers. He rightly pointed out in his speech the critical budget situation.hin und machte keine leeren Versprechungen. Das Land befindet sich in einer Phase, in der ein neues Gespräch über die Funktionen des Staates erforderlich ist.
Sicherlich kann man trotzdem Lindner für seine Präsentation kritisieren, insbesondere, wenn man auf der anderen Seite des politischen Spektrums steht. Jede gut funktionierende Demokratie lebt von der Konkurrenz der Standpunkte, von der inhaltlichen Auseinandersetzung. Jedoch fehlen die eigene überzeugende Argumente – und eigene Ehrlichkeit, in der Kritik der Linkenchefin und der Klimaschutz-Aktivistin.
Die Vorwürfe, die sie an Lindner richten, müssen sich Wissler und Neubauer letzten Endes auch selbst gefallen lassen. Wer davon spricht, dass ein Mitglied der Bundesregierung Menschen gegeneinander aufhetzt und ausspielt, wer einen Minister als „menschlich ekelhaft“ brandmarkt, wer zudem völlig überzogene Rücktrittsforderungen in den Raum stellt – der leistet einen eigenen Beitrag für das, was er eigentlich kritisieren wollte: gesellschaftliche Spaltung und Entsolidarisierung.
Ein unangebrachter moralischer Antrieb, der die Vertrauenskrise verschärft
Der emotionale Gegenwind von Links, der über Lindner nach seiner Rede hereinbrach, zeigt mindestens genauso wie die Bauern-Proteste selbst, was gerade schief läuft im politischen Betrieb unseres Landes. Die Beteiligten schaffen es an vielen Stellen nicht mehr, den richtigen Ton zu treffen. Sie müssen wieder lernen, zuzuhören, auch unbequeme Argumente wirken zu lassen, nicht alles mit Gegenreaktionen niederzumachen.
Wer aus einem unangebrachten moralischen Antrieb heraus gleich in die rhetorisch unterste Schublade oder zu Superlativen des Versagens greift, verschärft die gefährliche Vertrauenskrise, von der die AfD derzeit stark profitiert, weiter.
