Context — May 16, 2017, 10:03 am

Everything in Moderation

The success of Germany’s AfD party has in good part been owed to its ability to put a friendly face on a nasty message.

In 2011, the Pirate Party stormed into Berlin’s state parliament, taking 8.9 percent of the vote. Its legislators proudly demonstrated how different they were from establishment politicians, donning dungarees, hoodies, and man buns. The lunatics had taken over the asylum—and they had every intention of rewriting its rules.

Sebastian Nerz, the Pirates’ leader, declared this victory a sign that they were capable of “serious, long-term politics in parliament.” The media seemed to agree. The BBC called the Pirates’ victory a “spectacular . . . success.” The Guardian asserted that “U.K. politicians could learn a lot from the Pirate Party.” The New York Times went so far as to suggest that Barack Obama should emulate the Pirates’ campaign techniques.

But within three years, a party that had looked on the verge of transforming German politics began to collapse. Their platform, which had originally been centered around data privacy, consumer rights, and transparency, was co-opted by radicals of all stripes. “Our biggest problem was that we let everyone in who wanted to join,” Stephan Urbach, a former Pirate activist who eventually left the party, told the New Republic. “I’d go to a Party convention and there would be, like, Holocaust deniers there.”

Five years after entering Berlin’s state parliament, the Pirate Party lost every one of its seats. Today, it is a spent force, barely remembered as a bygone curiosity.

The history of the Pirate Party illustrates the challenges faced by upstart political parties: even when their message resonates, they need to build a professional operation, rein in extremists, and avoid destructive spats to survive. Most fail to do so. After celebrating brief successes, they fight over the spoils or fail to moderate, and eventually return to obscurity.

This helps to explain why Germany has not sent a single far-right party in its national parliament since the creation of the Federal Republic in 1949. Die Republikaner, the Deutsche Volksunion (DVU), and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) each made inroads in a series of regional elections, only to fall prey to uncompromising extremism or organizational ineptitude.

Then came the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Founded in 2012 partly by Bernd Lucke, an economics professor, the party started as a one-issue movement with a libertarian streak. At first, the AfD managed to be seen as radical but not overly unsavory. It started by advocating for the reintroduction of the deutsche mark, a policy with broad support in a country where pride in the postwar economic miracle had long functioned as a substitute for more overt patriotism. But soon enough, its genteel Euroscepticism success attracted the less genteel elements of Germany’s far right. Once Angela Merkel opened the country’s borders to refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war, everything else became secondary: the party increasingly gravitated towards fear-mongering and race-baiting. In 2015, Frauke Petry, a charismatic chemist in her thirties, toppled Lucke from the leadership.

Under Petry’s leadership, the AfD turned into a far-right populist party on the model of Marine Le Pen’s National Front. Within months, its agenda had become less about Germany leaving the European Union and more about Islam leaving Germany. AfD members proposed a ban on headscarves in schools and universities. A party pamphlet declared that “Islam does not belong in Germany.” In January, Björn Höcke, one of its most senior leaders, called on Germans to stop atoning for World War II, pledging to “rewrite the history books” if the AfD gained power. These comments have led to Höcke’s near expulsion from the party, with party leaders, including Petry, voting to start the legal process required for his removal.

And yet, the AfD retained many of the advantages of its origins. Better organized and less tainted than previous far-right parties, it turned into the “most successful nationalist phenomenon since the Second World War.” And with refugees entering Germany in record numbers, the AfD’s anti-immigrant message seemed destined to grow in popularity. As one party leader put it, Europe’s refugee crisis was a “gift from heaven” for the AfD. Until a few months ago, polls predicted that the party would take over 10 percent of the vote in national elections scheduled for this coming fall.

Petry took power by allying herself with the party’s extremist wing. Now, that same wing has grown impatient with her moderation. At the party’s annual conference last weekend, Petry was, for all intents and purposes, dethroned.

Her defeat had many roots: A husband implicated in dodgy dealings. An attempt to promote what she touted as a “realist” program over her opponents’ vision for the party, which she rightly branded as “fundamentalist.” And her attempt to throw Höcke out of the party for his remarks about the Holocaust.

The AfD’s success so far has in good part been owed to Petry’s ability to put a friendly face on a nasty message. When Yascha saw her speak at a party rally while reporting “Echt Deutsch,” she straddled a thin line between firing up her base with attacks on the government’s refugee policy and disavowing openly racist rhetoric. When Yascha asked whether she worried about the fact that some of the party’s supporters had advocated setting refugees’ homes on fire, for instance, she shrewdly deflected. “People should protest against the government’s refugee policy in front of town halls and ministries,” she said, “not in front of the homes of asylum seekers.”

The new leadership team, composed of Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel, will attempt to pass as moderate, too. It’s not impossible that they might succeed: Gauland was a long-time functionary for Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Weidel is young, well spoken, and openly gay. In theory, they might be as successful in “detoxifying” the party as Petry had been.

But the damage they’ve done to their mainstream appeal is, in practice, likely too high. To take control of the party, they had to pander to its extremes. While Weidel claims to have considerable political disagreements with Höcke, for example, she still vowed to campaign alongside him in the coming months.

And so the most recent turn in the AfD’s evolution is a decidedly mixed blessing: On the one hand, it looks as though the party might do less well than it seemed a few short weeks ago. While polls still predict that it will comfortably clear the 5-percent hurdle to enter the Bundestag, its chances of taking 15 or 20 percent of the vote have markedly declined. “I’m hopeful that the AfD is finally showing its true face,” Lamya Kaddor, the Muslim writer and teacher profiled in “Echt Deutsch,” wrote in a Facebook message in the wake of Petry’s ouster. “Now, even the last voter will perhaps understand where that particular train is headed.”

On the other hand, the party will continue to have a very loud voice—and its new leaders are even more likely to engage in unambiguously racist discourse. Refugees like Mousa, Ranim, Ali, Maya, and Amr, whose fate Yascha has been following since he met them while reporting for “Echt Deutsch” in March of 2016, will face even more hatred in the coming months. And so, for now, the promise of a truly multiethnic democracy remains unrealized.

Read “Echt Deutsch” here.

Share
Single Page

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2019

Machine Politics

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Polar Light

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump Is a Good President

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Resistances

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Long Shot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Machine Politics·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip,” Ronald Reagan said in 1989. He was speaking to a thousand British notables in London’s historic Guildhall, several months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Reagan proclaimed that the world was on the precipice of “a new era in human history,” one that would bring “peace and freedom for all.” Communism was crumbling, just as fascism had before it. Liberal democracies would soon encircle the globe, thanks to the innovations of Silicon Valley. “I believe,” he said, “that more than armies, more than diplomacy, more than the best intentions of democratic nations, the communications revolution will be the greatest force for the advancement of human freedom the world has ever seen.”

At the time, most everyone thought Reagan was right. The twentieth century had been dominated by media that delivered the same material to millions of people at the same time—radio and newspapers, movies and television. These were the kinds of one-to-many, top-down mass media that Orwell’s Big Brother had used to stay in power. Now, however, Americans were catching sight of the internet. They believed that it would do what earlier media could not: it would allow people to speak for themselves, directly to one another, around the world. “True personalization is now upon us,” wrote MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte in his 1995 bestseller Being Digital. Corporations, industries, and even whole nations would soon be transformed as centralized authorities were demolished. Hierarchies would dissolve and peer-to-peer collaborations would take their place. “Like a force of nature,” wrote Negroponte, “the digital age cannot be denied or stopped.”

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Long Shot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ihave had many names, but as a sniper I went by Azad, which means “free” or “freedom” in Kurdish. I had been fighting for sixteen months in Kurdish territory in northern Syria when in April 2015 I was asked to leave my position on the eastern front, close to the Turkish border, and join an advance on our southwestern one. Eight months earlier, we had been down to our last few hundred yards, and, outnumbered five to one, had made a last stand in Kobanî. In January, after more than four months of fighting street-to-street and room-by-room, we recaptured the town and reversed what was, until then, an unstoppable jihadi tide. In the battles since, we had pushed ­ISIS far enough in every direction that crossing our territory was no longer a short dash through the streets but a five-hour drive across open country. As we set out to the north, I could make out the snowy peaks in southern Turkey where they say Noah once beached his ark. Below them, rolling toward us, were the wide, grassy valleys and pine forests of Mesopotamia, the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris where our people have lived for twelve thousand years.

The story of my people is filled with bitter ironies. The Kurds are one of the world’s oldest peoples and, as pioneers of agriculture, were once among its most advanced. Though the rest of the world now largely overlooks that it was Kurds who were among the first to create a civilization, the evidence is there. In 1995, German archaeologists began excavating a temple at Göbekli Tepe in northern Kurdistan. They found a structure flanked by stone pillars carved with bulls, foxes, and cranes, which they dated to around 10,000 bce. At the end of the last Ice Age, and seven thousand years before the erection of Stonehenge or the pyramids at Giza, my ancestors were living together as shamans, artists, farmers, and engineers.

Fighters of the YJA-STAR, the women’s force in the PKK, Sinjar, Iraq, November 2015 (detail)
Article
Polar Light·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To get oriented here is difficult. The light is flat because the sky is overcast. The sun’s weak rays create only a few anemic shadows by which to judge scale and distance. Far-off objects like mountain peaks have crisp edges because the atmosphere itself is as transparent as first-water diamonds, but the mountains are not nearly as close as they seem. It’s about negative-twelve degrees Fahrenheit, but the wind is relatively calm, moving over the snow distractedly, like an animal scampering.

[caption id="attachment_271890" align="aligncenter" width="690"]True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images. True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images.[/caption]

Four of the six people living here are in their tents now, next to their cookstoves, two by two, warming up and preparing their suppers. I’m the fifth of the group, almost motionless at the moment, a hundred yards south of the tent cluster, kneeling on a patch of bluish ice in the midst of a great expanse of white. I’m trying to discern a small object entombed there a few inches below the surface. Against the porcelain whites of this gently sloping landscape, I must appear starkly apparent in my cobalt blue parka and wind pants. I shift slowly right and left, lean slightly forward, then settle back, trying to get the fluxless sunlight to reveal more of the shape and texture of the object.

A multiple-exposure photograph (detail) taken every hour from 1:30 pm on December 8, 1965, to 10:10 am on December 9, 1965, showing the sun in its orbit above the South Pole, Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station © Georg Gerster/Panos Pictures
Article
Donald Trump Is a Good President·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In all sincerity, I like Americans a lot; I’ve met many lovely people in the United States, and I empathize with the shame many Americans (and not only “New York intellectuals”) feel at having such an appalling clown for a leader.

However, I have to ask—and I know what I’m requesting isn’t easy for you—that you consider things for a moment from a non-American point of view. I don’t mean “from a French point of view,” which would be asking too much; let’s say, “from the point of view of the rest of the world.”On the numerous occasions when I’ve been questioned about Donald Trump’s election, I’ve replied that I don’t give a shit. France isn’t Wyoming or Arkansas. France is an independent country, more or less, and will become totally independent once again when the European Union is dissolved (the sooner, the better).

Illustration (detail) by Ricardo Martínez
Article
Resistances·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The prepositions you’re most likely to encounter after the title of a poem are “for” or “to” and sometimes “after”—“for my daughter”; “to Bobby”; “after Pound”; etc. They signify dedication, address, homage, imitation. In the recent poems of Fred Moten, we encounter “with,” a preposition that denotes accompaniment. The little difference makes a big difference, emphasizing collaboration over the economy of the gift, suggesting that the poet and his company are fellow travelers, in the same time zone, alongside each other in the present tense of composition. (Given Moten’s acclaimed critical work on jazz, the “with” is immediately evocative of musical performance, e.g., “Miles Davis with Sonny Rollins.”) Not all “withs” are the same—there is a different intimacy in the poem “fifty little springs,” which is “with aviva,” Moten’s wife’s Hebrew name (which means springtime), than there is in “resistances,” which is “with” a critic and an artist, interlocutors of Moten’s. (The poem “13. southern pear trees” has no preposition after the title, but is excerpted from another responding to the work of Zoe Leonard, and so is still a work of fellowship.) The scale of that “with” can be small (“with aviva, as if we were all alone”) or vast (“with everybody we don’t know”), but either way the poem becomes an instance of alongsidedness instead of belatedness; the poems request, with that subtle prepositional shift, that we think of ourselves as participants in the production of meaning and not mere recipients of someone else’s eloquence.

“Untitled,” 1989, by Zoe Leonard © Zoe Leonard (detail)

Estimated number of times in the Fall of 1990 that George Bush told a joke about his dog asking for a wine list with her Alpo:

10

French researchers reported that 52 percent of young women exposed to Francis Cabrel’s ballad “Je l’aime à mourir” gave their phone numbers to an average-looking young man who hit on them, whereas only 28 percent of those exposed to Vincent Delerm’s “L’heure du thé” did so.

Migrant children were teargassed; carbon dioxide levels have reached three to five million year high; missionary killed by remote tribe

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today