W. Was he again Olaf Sholets? The story is cruel, and historiography, too, and in many respects it will remain inexplicable, because a) this person can become a federal chancellor without any characteristics and without real bodies, contrary to all arithmetic logic and b) b) why he did not take advantage of the chance when she offered to herself.
So how can you sleep your dream? Olaf Sholts will enter history as an intermediate figure, squeezing in the turns of time. And, I think, he will disappoint himself as strongly as those who chose it. He was a chancellor without a project, which in critical issues that projects would be required so urgently as to provide democracy and society with energy and increasing vision, as a rule, only on the shoulders.
How do you, I thought, in some performances can be arrogant and not confident at the same time? Scholz gave this country through a post-Koron, Ukrainklig, October 7, Gaza and Trump, not realizing how his apathy was a hysteria of history. Its preferred grammatical design was sedative. Discourse was like a cinematic movie for him – what you are doing, although it is not fun and does not make sense. What remains is a country that is democratically raised.
It was hard to say that Social Democratic was from Olaf Sholts, except that he was not green, not one of the FDP or CDU and, of course, is not left. He tried to make a lack of attitude to the attitude – which was completely wrong, because any basis for decisions should already be present, even if you think that the decisions are overestimated.
Like Angela Merkel – only worse
So, how can you sell indecision as loyalty to principles? Already Angela Merkel, a child of neoliberal age, let everything work to what evidence that she could sell as her own. Her credo was captured by Margaret Thatcher: there is no alternative. How should you decide?
Sometimes the disasters were added and helped her a little – Fukushima or crises, such as the Syrian war and refugees – but in post -policy regime she largely gave the mandate of democratic design to management.
Sholz joined quite smoothly. He seemed to have enough difficulties to clarify the balance of forces in his office and coalition – until he allowed the debate about the law on heating. How much more difficult he would like to use the balance of power in the country for real changes if he wanted it. But it seemed that he knew how hopeless it would be.
He preferred not to be a hero and did not even try – than the tragic hero who risked and lost everything. The reality surrounded by Scholz always seemed a little blurry, his relationship with the world was somewhat weakened, politely said: distant. One would have thought that this was not particularly interested in this if you had no longer heard that everything was completely two.
As a private Scholz does not matter
So, a real Scholts. Why everyone did not expect at all, because they were not very glad to know something about this person whom they never wanted. You often hear that politicians are “actually very different” when you recognize them in private. But this is also a democratic misunderstanding. Politics should work publicly, not private.
The relationship between voters and the chancellor determined the deep lack of absence – and Scholz knew this, he felt it, I think. In a sense, this, it seems, also did not bother him. His political style is the style of a smart technocrat who makes things behind the scenes that he is sure that they work better than they understand all those who speak and fight loudly. Let me do it. His most strange proposal was: “Anyone who ordered leadership will receive them too.”
I often had the impression that people always emphasize exactly what they are not or cannot. People who especially love to work in Excel tables are often those who are especially embarrassed in their heads. People who say that they especially like to work in a team and want all the prospects to say that often stubborn loners who prefer that everything is as they want.
And now Scholz, who has seized world history between two acts of acts, because it is so better controlled. Pragmatism was caused, because this word that covers bewilderment, that outside the leadership or vision there is a vacuum of ideas, which, of course, the chancellor cannot fill in alone. But at least he could see and turn to this.
Neoperation against nothing
This connects Scholz with Frederick Merz, who loves to sell his weakness of leadership – as you can see – or his weakness of character as pragmatism. But his maneuvers, such as a special fund, ultimately are a sign of the crowding out of politics, which accompanied us for decades. People who react more. There he is afraid to look into the future.
Olaf Sholts was not a chancellor for those meanwhile. He was too narrow for this. It was a failure that history spilled around the country with complete power. Scholz pulled everyone; What happened yesterday, the failure of the democratic system, mysterious insurmountable against nothing is also his inheritance.
