I find this question, prompted by @SethCotlar’s criticism of what he rightfully calls the "naïve, American Exceptionalist idea that 'it can’t happen here'," really interesting. A few thoughts from a German perspective. 1/
I’m not necessarily an expert on this topic and have not been following the debate among German conservatives super closely (keeping up with what’s happening on the American side of the Atlantic keeps you pretty busy these days…). So these are really just a few thoughts. 2/
Interestingly, German post-war history has been shaped by almost the reverse exceptionalist idea: "It happened here, so it can always happen again, and it is our responsibility to make sure that it won’t, at least not here." 3/
By the late 1980s, the Federal Republic’s national identity, if there was such a thing, centered around the Nazi period and specifically the Holocaust, and focused on the way West Germany had democratized and accepted the mass crimes as a defining feature of its own history. 4/
A very peculiar kind of national pride had developed, articulated most clearly by the left: "Look how far we’ve come since 1945, look how we have accepted the responsibility that results from our history." A sense not of collective guilt, but responsibility. 5/
To be clear, the exact place of the Holocaust in Germany’s history and collective memory, and the question of whether it should have any relevance for German politics, society, and culture in the present have always been contested. 6/
But by the 1990s an elite consensus around these issues had developed, one that was supported at least by mainstream conservative politicians and elites. No one in the Merkel wing of the conservative party, for instance, would question the centrality of the Holocaust. 7/
Not everyone shares that view, of course. There have always been attempts, particularly on the right, to decenter the Nazi period and the Holocaust – by focusing more on the “good” parts of German history: Goethe maybe, or Frederick the Great if you are so inclined. 8/
Since the Reunification in 1990, the calls for a "normalization" have become louder – as in: The past is the past, and now we’re just a "normal" country. To me, the "normalization" discourse got particularly annoying when Germany hosted the soccer World Cup in 2006. 9/
People were wearing jerseys, waving flags, singing the anthem – all fine; but some pundits got a little too excited: “See how normal we are? Can’t you see?!” As if the normalization fetish itself wasn’t proof that something was not quite “normal.” 10/
The debate over of how "normal" Germany was has always focused on history. In 2012, Cambridge historian Chris Clark published The Sleepwalkers, arguing that we needed to revise our understanding of the German Empire being mainly responsible for the First World War. 11/
In Clark’s interpretation, the major powers were all to blame, as they all “sleepwalked” into the Great War. The book was especially well received in Germany – with certain commentators getting all hyped up about the supposed exoneration of the Empire. 12/
And the debate quickly turned to the present and Germany’s role in the world: Since it was now "proven," some argued, that Germans had not been the big baddies of the past, was it not time to finally step out of history’s shadow and be a "normal" nation? 13/
What do "normal" nations do, you ask? Well, according to this interpretation, they pursue a more "robust" national interest in foreign policy and stop being so "subservient" to the rest of Europe, for instance. 14/
(Interestingly, the "Chris Clark proves we were never the baddies!" crowd conveniently neglected to address the Hitler-sized elephant in the room… but hey, history is hard.) 15/
Unsurprisingly, Germany’s far-right party AfD is full of people who think it’s a crime against the nation to focus on the Holocaust, reject any notion of collective responsibility emanating from German mass crimes, and don’t care about the "don’t let it happen again" part. 16/
Then again, so far, the other parties – including the conservative CDU/CSU – have pledged not to cooperate with the AfD in any way. I dare not make predictions as to how long they will hold that line. But so far, they have. 17/
There are certainly forces within the conservative CDU/CSU and the "liberal" (libertarian/conservative mostly, really) FDP that are open to cooperating with the AfD. But so far, those forces have been kept in check. 18/
One reason why is the fact that the "It happened here, so it can always happen again, and it is our responsibility to make sure that it won’t" mantra is still exerting a strong influence, shaping what is seen as legitimate and what is deemed out of bounds in German politics. 19/
The “exceptionalism,” if we want to call it that, still holds. But again, these are just a few thoughts, and I’d love to hear what others who know more about the German side think. Certainly fascinating to tackle the “Can it happen here?” question comparatively. /end
Addendum: This is an absolutely crucial point, and I completely agree – it is very, very concerning.
People who claim Zelensky was at fault yesterday and should have been more “diplomatic” or “respectful” are either deliberately propagating the Trumpist attack line – or they fundamentally misunderstand what the Trumpist project is and who is now in power in the United States.
There is this pervasive idea that Trump doesn’t really mean it, has no real position, and can therefore be steered and manipulated by tactical and diplomatic finesse; or maybe he’s just a businessman looking for a great deal. But that’s all irrelevant here.
Trump himself has been very consistent about his preference for foreign autocrats, especially Putin, and his (at best) disinterest and siding with Ukraine and (actually) explicit antagonism towards not only Zelensky, but Europe’s democracies more generally.
MAGA, the German Far Right, and the Transnational Assault on Democracy
A reflection on the German far right, Musk’s interference in the German election, and why the MAGA-AfD alliance isn’t nearly as irresistible as they want us to believe.
Some thoughts (and link below):
🧵
The results of the German election are in. On the one hand: About three quarters of the voting public stuck with democratic parties. On the other: The AfD got 20.8 percent of the vote - by far the strongest result the far right has achieved in Germany since 1945.
After it was founded in 2013, the AfD quickly evolved from what was initially mainstream-rightwing-to-reactionary territory into a far-right party that fully rejects liberal democracy and is undoubtedly the political home of Germany’s rightwing extremists.
I wrote a long profile of him: He’s one of the architects of Project 2025, an avowed Christian nationalist, and a radical ideologue of the “post-constitutional” Right
Vought is at war with pluralistic democracy (link below):
🧵
Vought will be singularly focused on bending the entire government machine to Trump’s will. He believes that any check on the power of Donald Trump, who Vought literally describes as a “gift of God,” is illegitimate. There is no line he doesn’t feel justified to cross.
Key to understanding Vought’s worldview is the idea that the constitutional order - and with it the “natural” order itself - has been destroyed: The revolution has already happened, “the Left” won. Therefore, conservatives err when they try to preserve what is no more.
Russell Vought will be a key figure in the regime, as competent as he is radical. He’s one of the architects of Project 2025, an avowed Christian nationalist, an ideologue of the “post-constitutional” Right.
Key to Vought’s worldview is the idea that the constitutional order - and with it the “natural” order itself - has been destroyed: The revolution has already happened, “the Left” won. Therefore, conservatives categorically err when they try to preserve what is no more.
Power now lies with a “permanent ruling class” of leftist elites who control all major institutions of life and especially the “woke and weaponized” agencies of the state. In order to defeat them, conservatives must become “radical constitutionalists” - and take radical action.
Lots of talk about the OMB because of the utterly illegal funding freeze it issued.
A reminder that Russell Vought, the guy Trump wants to lead the agency, seeks to “traumatize” civil servants, use the military to suppress protests, and sees Trump as an agent of God’s will. 🧵
Vought will be singularly focused on bending the entire government machine to Trump’s will. He steadfastly believes that any check on the president’s power – on the power of Donald Trump, specifically, who Vought literally describes as a “gift of God” – is illegitimate.
Vought may look like a boring bureaucrat. But he is a committed ideologue, convinced to be fighting a noble war to defend his “real America” of white Christian patriarchal rule, where people like him get to dominate the public square and define who belongs.
Been asked so many times: “What do you think will happen?”
We will know a lot more soon. But I do think it’s helpful to clarify expectations. The baseline, for me: Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent. Yet the situation is significantly more dangerous than in 2017.
🧵1/
We must resist the temptation to perpetuate Trump’s constant attempts to assert dominance by reflexively despairing over our supposedly hopeless situation. MAGA desires to project power and strength – something we should subvert rather than confirm. 2/
Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent, and obscuring that distinction is an act of defeatism that only serves the regime. There is a vast gulf between Trump’s authoritarian aspirations on the one hand and the realities of a complex modern state and society on the other. 3/