History repeats itself: A philosophical interpretation of the European elections

Yesterday, the German people voted in the European elections. The result was not particularly surprising. Nevertheless, we want to interpret the result and what it means in a philosophical way and express our opinion.

Not only Hegel noted that the events of history always repeat themselves twice, George Santayana also said:

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

To clarify this repetition, we will contrast two historical events in the following paragraphs. Here you should try to find the differences in the events, which are separated in time.

First event

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) managed to come to power in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s by using a mixture of political opportunism, clever propaganda and the exploitation of social fears and discontent. The world economic crisis of 1929, which led to massive unemployment and economic misery, was particularly decisive. In this atmosphere of social and economic chaos, the radical ideas of the NSDAP became increasingly popular.

The NSDAP propagated the idea that foreigners, especially Jews, were responsible for Germany's economic and social problems. They spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and accused Jewish people of controlling and sabotaging the German economy and politics. This agitation found fertile ground in a population looking for scapegoats for their misery.

Second event:

The AfD managed to attract more and more voters in Germany in the 2010s and early 2020s by using a mixture of political opportunism, skillful Social media propaganda and exploiting social fears and dissatisfaction. The economic instability that arose for various geopolitical reasons, which led to increased inflation, was particularly decisive. In this atmosphere of social and economic chaos, the radical ideas of the AfD became increasingly popular.

The AfD propagated the idea that foreigners were responsible for Germany's economic and social problems. They spread conspiracy theories and accused non-Germans of controlling and sabotaging the German economy and politics. This agitation found fertile ground in a population looking for scapegoats for their misery.

Hopefully we don't need to explain the parallels between these two stories any further, as they should be clearly recognizable to anyone with more than two synapses in their brain. The question raised here, however, is why such an obvious repetition is happening again.

On the one hand, this may be due to the fact that most people tend to use history lessons to look out of the window lost in thought or to fool around with classmates. On the other hand, it may also be due to people's ignorance or selfishness.

The fact that uncertain times always produce conservative election results is nothing new. But what surprises us personally is that times are not so uncertain. Yes, in recent years there has been a pandemic within Germany, a rising cost of living and some division within the population. However, this year Germany overtook Japan as the third largest economy (n-TV) and have largely left the coronavirus pandemic behind them. The energy transition is also going extremely well (Report Federal Government).

This, in turn, may be one reason why such a shift to the right has occurred despite relatively stable social conditions and has ensured that the political stage has shifted further and further from the factual to the populist in recent years. But how did it come about that facts became less and less valuable and how do populists manage to find so much appeal?

Why are populists so successful?

At first glance, the answer to this question seems very simple. Recent events in particular, such as the Murder of police officer Ruven L. in Mannheim make it easy to understand why people listen to and vote for populist parties, because they tap into the fear and dissatisfaction of the population. The fact that such things - as tragic as they are - cannot be prevented, at least not without completely curtailing the freedom that is apparently so important to the same parties, is not taken into account here. According to populist 101, the blame is placed on the incumbent government (in the above example, on the migration policy of the last twenty years) and a solution to the problem is offered: More security in Germany. In this specific case, another name for isolationism, which incidentally has never brought long-term benefits in any example of human history. Experience has shown that isolation always leads to backwardness and internal tensions. Populists often ignore these historical lessons in order to achieve short-term political gains.

Here are some examples from history:

Japanese isolation (Sakoku)From 1639 to 1853, Japan pursued a policy of extensive isolation from the rest of the world, known as Sakoku. This isolation enabled Japan to maintain social stability and promote cultural development. However, this isolation also meant that Japan lagged behind Western nations in technological and military terms. When Japan was finally forced to open up, it quickly realized that it had to catch up considerably, which led to rapid and sometimes painful modernization.
Chinese isolation during the Ming dynastyThe Ming dynasty (1368-1644) is known for its decision to discontinue Admiral Zheng He's famous treasure fleets and to focus China's foreign policy more on isolation. This isolation helped to maintain internal stability, but also meant that China missed out on the technological and economic progress of the European powers, which led to considerable disadvantages in the 19th century.
The isolation of North KoreaSince the Korean War in the 1950s, North Korea has pursued an extremely isolationist policy. Although this isolation has secured the ruling elite's control over the country, it has also led to economic stagnation, widespread poverty and international isolation. A comparison with the much more prosperous and technologically advanced South Korea shows the disadvantages of such a policy.

The above example of foreclosure shows a typical approach: Simple explanations are offered for complex issues. This is not only the case with the perceived threat from outside, but also with a number of other issues such as the problems caused by man-made climate change. Instead of dealing with the complexity of this issue, the simplest possible solution is offered: it doesn't exist. This tactic of denying or simplifying complex problems appeals to many people who feel overwhelmed by the challenges of the modern world and are looking for simple answers.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. "

["For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."]
H. L. Mencken

Populists therefore deliberately exploit uncertainty and the need for simple explanations in order to gain approval. In doing so, they ignore the long-term consequences and the historical evidence that simplification rarely leads to sustainable solutions.

Another reason why people are so susceptible to populism is that it presents itself in an emotional way and thus adopts fundamental psychological mechanisms. Even if people are rational beings, they are even more emotional beings. Anyone who has seen one or two talk shows in which researchers are taken apart by speakers from lobby associations because they provide facts and defend the scientific consensus instead of using counter-questions and influencing the discussion by arousing the emotions of the audience knows what is meant here.

The most recent result of this is that emotionally charged issues, such as fear of foreigners, are clearly overshadowing events such as climate change. Although the recent floods in Germany have been devastating, this issue either has no significance with a large proportion of the electorate or is immediately dismissed as untrue - and this while we have already recorded the sixth flood of the century, but only a quarter of the current century has been written. While it could be argued that these floods should be problematic enough to make people rethink, the inhumane statements made by certain populists in relation to foreigners or people with a migration background are undoubtedly reason enough.

The Federal Constitutional Court in Münster ruled in favor of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution that it may classify the AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist (Daily news). This means that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution can continue to use intelligence services to monitor the party.

However, voters do not seem to care about this fact. In our opinion, this is largely due to the fact that voters have little to no trust in the state, the current government and its bodies. They believe that the state and its government have become corrupt because they have been in power for too long.

What surprises us, however, or rather makes us slap our forehead with the palm of our hand, is the fact that these voters are not so skeptical about whether the new government - in this case consisting of the AfD - will not also become corrupt the moment it comes to power. However, it should be borne in mind that the AfD already has several corruption scandals and proceedings against it.

The Russian people had a similarly shallow train of thought before the October Revolution. The old establishment has been in power for too long and that's why we need a new one. However, nobody here saw that the new government would corrupt the very second it came to power.

An important question now is cui bonowho has an advantage (from this). So who benefits from Europe's slide to the right and the division of the European population?

Who is interested in the current development and why?

Who has an interest in current developments in Germany? Who benefits from the slide to the right? The most obvious beneficiary is the AfD itself. But who is the AfD, or rather, who is behind it?

On the one hand, we have the AfD politicians here, who have a vested interest in their own party's upswing. That's clear. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface, there are the party's individual politicians, who may have an economic interest in the influx. Here it is worth a look at Lobbypediawhich seems to confirm this. Admittedly, lobbying and conflicts of interest are definitely not an exclusive AfD problem, but a general problem in the political landscape in Germany that is clearly emerging. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the AfD contradictorily presents itself as a party for the lower and middle classes. While the party often presents itself in its election manifesto and policy statements as a party that wants to represent the interests of "ordinary people", there are various aspects of its policies that seem to be aimed at favoring the rich. Here are some points from the AfD's election manifesto and political practice:

Tax policy:
- Flat taxThe AfD has called for a flat tax in previous programs, which envisaged a uniform tax for all income groups. Critics argue that this would primarily benefit higher incomes, as the relative tax burden for the wealthier would fall.
- Abolition of inheritance taxThis would primarily relieve the burden on the wealthy and heirs to large fortunes, which would tend to favor the rich.

Social policy:
- Rejection of Hartz IV and basic income supportThe AfD spoke out against the existing form of social benefits and instead proposed a "citizen's income", which, however, does not represent a significant improvement for the lower classes.
- Family supportThe party advocates tax relief for families and higher child allowances, which tends to benefit the middle class more than the lower class.

Labor market policy:
- Against minimum wageThe AfD is in favour of the statutory minimum wage and spoke out in favour of making the labour market more flexible. This could be particularly disadvantageous for low earners and is more favorable to employers and companies.

You can read the above here:

But it only really becomes a political thriller when we look even further beneath the surface of the iceberg. This is where a picture emerges that is surprisingly international for the AfD (LobbyControl).

There are indications that governments of other countries, particularly Russia, may have an interest in supporting right-wing populist movements in Europe in order to destabilize politics and further their own geopolitical goals:

There are several reports indicating that Russia maintains financial support and other forms of cooperation with right-wing populist parties in Europe, including the AfD. A report by New Lines Magazine describes how Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev and other actors close to the Kremlin are supporting European right-wing populists to destabilize the EU (New Lines Magazine). These links include financial transactions and strategic meetings aimed at strengthening Russia's influence in Europe and promoting EU-sceptical parties.

A report by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) describes how right-wing populist parties in Europe, including the AfD, are supported by Russia to spread anti-Western and anti-liberal narratives and undermine European integration (ECFR).

Lawfare Media reports on the links between far-right groups and Russia, including the support AfD members have received from Russian sources (Lawfare Media).

A report by Euronews and an assessment by the US State Department suggest that Russia has spent more than 300 million dollars since 2014 to influence politicians and political parties in Europe (euronews). These financial supports include direct payments channeled through front organizations and think tanks to influence the political landscape and promote pro-Russian attitudes (here one could briefly look back at 16 years of pro-Russian CDU/CSU course and draw one's conclusions).

For example, AfD politician Maximilian Krah is suspected of having received payments from Russia. Investigations by the German public prosecutor's office include allegations that Krah accepted financial support from sources close to the Kremlin, which points to a long-term payment agreement (DW) (POLITICO).

Another case concerns AfD politician Petr Bystron, who was accused of receiving money from a pro-Russian network. These accusations were supported by audio recordings in which Bystron allegedly accepted money for services in connection with the Russian platform Voice of Europe (New Voice of Ukraine).

While the direct links between the AfD and China are less documented, there are general concerns that China is seeking to expand its influence in Europe through economic investment and political connections. This influence could include support for political movements that could weaken European unity.

However, the case of Maximilian Krah shows that there could also be links to China. Krah is also suspected of having received payments from China. These allegations include alleged payments for his role as a member of parliament, which is also the subject of investigations by the German public prosecutor's office (DW).

The financial support and strategic cooperation between Russia and right-wing populist parties in Europe, including the AfD, are well documented. How this influence on Germany and the European Union could bring benefits can be wonderfully derived from the Latin proverb "divide et impera" (divide and rule). The principle of dividing a group in order to be able to rule over it more easily is applied here on a geopolitical level. Russia uses division within Europe to promote its own interests and weaken the cohesion of the EU. This tactic allows Russia to strengthen its influence in Europe and destabilize the Western alliance.

What can actually happen?

The fact that Europe has experienced a shift to the right can no longer be denied, but what exactly does this mean?

Obviously, this means that many people have voted much further to the right of the center than before. For us, however, the consequences of this are also worrying. The CDU/CSU has also seen a significant increase in voters, which we believe may be due to the fact that it has moved a little further from the center to the right.

Another point is that, in order to gain majorities in the EU Parliament, parties now increasingly have to reach out to other right-wing parties or adapt their own proposals accordingly in order to achieve majorities and push through resolutions.

So what to do?

It is therefore up to us to maintain a healthy dialog between the political camps and thus put a stop to division and extremism.

If we do not manage to maintain or resume dialog with moderate dissenters, the political landscape in Europe will converge with that of the USA, where Democrats and Republicans hardly meet at all and society has become almost completely divided - not only from top to bottom, but also from left to right. This polarization can lead to a dangerous radicalization and endanger social cohesion.

It is crucial to promote dialog between different political camps and find common solutions to the challenges of our time. Only through an open and respectful exchange can we prevent extreme positions from gaining further influence and further dividing our society.

To achieve this, we must find ways to build bridges and promote mutual respect, even if we disagree on many issues. Only in this way can we avoid a divided society and preserve a strong, united and stable democracy.

Plato explains in his book The statethat governments are formed on the basis of the moral and ethical state of the population. To put it more simply; insecure populations elect insecure governments, right-wing populations elect right-wing governments and divided populations elect divided governments. On the one hand, this seems very logical and clear, but you have to think about it to understand this idea.

Plato thus shows us that we are slipping further and further apart as a society and this is also reflected in the many small parties that were elected. Whereas the Social Democrats and the CDU/CSU used to receive the lion's share of the vote, the result of the last elections is much more widely spread.

However, this blog article is not intended to contribute further to this division; we would much rather encourage reflection, a closer look at the current situation and an exchange of views. We would like to conclude accordingly with Voltaire:

"I may disagree with you, but I would give my life for you to be able to express your opinion freely."
Voltaire