«A contemporary philosopher has suggested a paradigm of ‹oppositional collaboration› for areas with high ideological polarization, in which bioethicists (or scientists) with fundamentally opposed viewpoints work together to generate data that they all agree is as objective as possible for the relevant questions. This does not necessarily result in a change in values or agreement of the respective colleagues, but it can result in more accurate data and increased understanding and respect, extremely valuable outcomes.»
Dr. Joseph Stanford
To actually solve problems, you need to understand them. And to understand them, you need to see all aspects of a problem. You need viewpoint diversity. That is pretty much the only diversity that counts. You cannot get creative solutions, or even somewhat successful ones, when looking at issues from one side only.
This need for viewpoint diversity is especially relevant in politics and the problems it deals with. As Haidt put it beautifully, both the left and the right have their blind spots, their preferred causes and inconvenient truths (cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b86dzTFJbkc&t=0s ). You need the full range of perspectives to solve them, you need «oppositional collaboration».
That is my main reason why I have a huge problem with the «Brandmauer» (literally: firewall) in German politics. After all, politics has a huge influence and can make or break both countries and its citizens, and we need the right conditions for desperately needed innovation. So the following is my impression of the «Brandmauer». I am not a political scholar, «just» a citizen, so take it with a grain of salt.
Reasoning for the «Brandmauer»
In short, the main political parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, The Greens, The Left, FDP) have long decided not to collaborate with the AfD. This «Brandmauer» (firewall) is frequently justified on moral grounds, on protecting democracy against its enemies. And it is a noble and valid principle to stop fascists (or communists, or islamists for that matter). But good intentions are a warning sign, as you can justify anything with them. What matters are both the validity of the assessment as enemy of democracy and the effects of the methods that are employed.
As for validity, if you follow mainstream media, you do get the impression that the AfD is a right-wing extremist party. After all, there are frequent accusations in the media and assessments by Offices for the Protection of the Constitution that some groups are «confirmed right-wing extremist». However, giving how the mainstream media in Germany is funded by the (left-wing) government and the AfD is critical of that funding, and most journalists are on the left, it is no wonder the mainstream media are outright hostile to the AfD. For example, highly misleading stories are usually against the AfD, not against other parties (e.g., a highly misleading/fabricated report about a meeting in which ostensibly the deportation of German citizens was discussed). There is also something similar to the Trump Derangement Syndrome. When it comes to the AfD, some people discard liberal values and principles, and are willing to, well, «destroy democracy to save it» would be one way of putting it. As for the assessments of the offices for the protection of the constitution, as far as I know, some assessments are not made public, not even to the AfD, so evidence and arguments cannot be reviewed. Also the impartiality of these offices is put into question.
But perhaps, even likely, some AfD members do hold extremist views, others, likely most, do not. Judging both from past party programs and speeches, I would call the AfD simply right-wing, even somewhat libertarian on the political compass (e.g., they voted against mandatory Covid vaccinations).
Normally, being «right-wing» and not extremist would not be a problem and should be recognized as a legitimate political position. But in Germany, some people see everything right-wing automatically as right-wing extremist, fascist, or even Nazi. That is a bold assertion considering that the AfD is at about 20% of the votes and all these voters are unlikely to be Nazis or «useful idiots».
Result of the «Brandmauer»
No matter the well-meaning intentions or the reasoning, the result of that «Brandmauer» is that political power is dominated by left-wing ideas and positions. And worst of all, it also shapes the so-called solutions that are proposed, and what can be implemented.
The result of this kind of politics — with a blinder to one side — is at least two-fold. First, the so-called conservative party CDU (Christian Democratic Union) has moved to the left as their only possible coalition partners are on the left. And I get the impression that some of their voters believe that it has betrayed its ideals and principles. Second, due to the one-sided view on the problems and possible solutions, Germany is in an economic and social downturn. Not surprising, you cannot look at problems from one side only — no matter whether the left or right — to solve them.
Why is the «Brandmauer» not removed?
The continued existence of the «Brandmauer», despite these problems, is strange, especially considering that the CDU and the AfD would have a majority if the CDU would ignore the «Brandmauer». Without the «Brandmauer», the CDU could collaborate with the AfD and the resulting government could make sweeping changes. The CDU would actually have the power to implement what it sometimes promises before elections, but fails to implement due to the resistance from their left-wing coalition partners.
So why don’t they? There is the right-wing extremist accusation, but I’d be careful with that. There are also the usual word-games, I mean, who would remove something that is called a «firewall»? But these are the usual linguistic tricks. What could be other reasons?
I first thought that the CDU was played, held hostage, so to speak, by the fear of being seen as right-wing extremist or Nazi, esp. by the German mainstream media. After all, this «Brandmauer» seems to help primarily the left wing parties. It turns the Greens into kingmakers (my impression: think watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside, with a strong smell of moral self-righteousness). But after listening to an Interview with Peter Hahne, I now think that the «Brandmauer» serves the same purpose as the Berlin Wall served for the German Democratic Republic: It keeps the people locked in. Here in the CDU.
A CDU-AfD coalition would provide legitimacy to the AfD. The AfD would not longer be ostracized in politics, including on a personal level (think other politicians refusing to ride in the same elevator, not shaking hands). The mainstream media would freak out, but for the citizen the message would be clear: It would be «okay» to vote for the AfD.
So the result of that coalition would likely be a shift of voters from the CDU to the AfD. At least of those who think the CDU did betray its values to stay in power. After all, the AfD is standing right beside it, not behind a metaphorical wall. And it would be hard for the CDU to win that trust back, if they have repeatedly shown that they value power more than principles.
That fear of losing voters might explain, better than moral concerns, why the «Brandmauer» still stands in Germany despite its economic and social problems. In the end, it might be the self-serving power-over-principles attitude of the CDU that prevents any change. And their unwillingness to risk losing voters if they cannot win back their trust. But that is one possible reason, I might be wrong.
Possible developments
Overall, I think the «Brandmauer» is a shame, because it prevents better solutions. Especially considering that a collaboration of the CDU with the moderates of the AfD might isolate the fringe of the AfD and would allow the CDU to return to their values. It might be win-win for both parties.
There is a national election coming and perhaps the voters will finally have enough and vote for change. After all, there is some movement, including Elon Musk’s comment of «Only the AfD can save Germany» and the resulting outrage in mainstream media (again, think funding/political orientation of most journalists, and as others have said, strange that there is no outrage when Bill Gates speaks).
Personally, I do not agree to Musks statement, at least not if it is meant in an exclusive way. A purely right-wing government would have the same problems as the current left-wing one. One reason why I think a «Brandmauer» on the left, if we ever had it, would be equally bad. You need to have different perspectives for creative and successful solutions, no matter whether you agree or disagree with the parties or perspectives involved. And if, and that is a big IF, a party really wants to abolish democracy, you don’t need a «Brandmauer», you need the courts and be done with it. Impartial, objective courts with transparent and fair application of the laws.
And yeah, it is somewhat naive to expect people on different sides to collaborate with each other. Politics is about power, not collaborative problem solving (here: via oppositional collaboration). Politicians advance based on their ability to wield power. But taking different perspectives seriously, instead of discounting them immediately because they are behind a metaphorical wall, would be a useful first step.
So from my perspective, the blinder to the right needs to be removed. The «Brandmauer» needs to fall — Reagan’s «Tear down this wall!» might apply here. We need to look at the current problems and opportunities from all sides to come up with creative and successful solutions. We need actual viewpoint diversity. We need oppositional collaboration.
And if the politicians, well, mostly the CDU, are not willing to remove it, perhaps the voters will.
2025 could become very interesting.