I am not a fan of Ms. Merkel -and, even less so, of Ms. Thatcher who “topped a poll of Britain’s best post-war leaders”-, but this article is just an empty rant without any substance. Except from the defense spending, there is not a single number, no source cited that would foster the authors’ argument.
Just a few points: There is a lot of reason why you could criticize the former German chancellor, but Ms. Merke’s “call to turn off Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants” isn’t likely one of them (the mistake here wasn’t the end of nuclear power but the failure of establishing a German renewable energy industry that was thriving in the 2000s).
And Ms. Merkel was not “inviting” over a million Syrians and others to Germany in 2015. The support Germany and some other states gave to refugees then fleeing a war was the right thing at the time. I can’t say whether this sign of humanity has “helped fuel the rise of the hard right in Germany and elsewhere,” but I am firmly convinced that if Ms. Merkel’s successors in politics -in Germany and elsewhere- would show a more human stance towards our current democracies and human rights and against autocracies, voters would likely have a real alternative to “the hard right in Germany and elsewhere”. (But, in the same article, the Economist criticizes Germany for “China [having] soaked up its exports, glad to face few questions over human rights, while Germany failed to worry about getting hooked on another autocratic regime”. What, I wonder, do they say about the current transparency discussions, forced labour and other issues in Chinese supply chains?)
So I conclude that you could write a whole book on Ms. Merkel’s economic policies, and not much of it may be positive. There is a lot to criticize. But this Economist article is another topic misconduct. To me reading this was a reminder why I unsubscribed to this magazine long time ago after having been a reader for many years.
I apologize for the long post.
And anyone with an ounce of common sense has been saying so during all these 16 years.
It was shitty rags like the Economist that were praising her short sighted economic policies.
Yep. She comes from the same broken mindset and corrupt party as Kohl who was the worst of all chancellors Germany ever has suffered from.
Insert Homer telling Bart “Worst cancelor so far!” here.
We have a high change that the next one will be sent directly from Black Rock.
Let’s say worst chancellor that federal Germany had.
Gerhard Schröder is a strong contender for that title as well.
Germans seem to be incredibly resistant to change, and Scholz is not a big departure from what Merkel was.
Like the article says at the end, her behavior really echoes the mindset.
While they are not all that far apart politically, I’d still disagree because of their differing styles: Merkel was a uniting force for much of her era (you will likely disagree if you’re Greek but nevertheless). Scholz just presents his stoic face, is unwilling to explain anything, and appears to naturally antagonize people.
So the end result is not that different…
In case of paywall. https://archive.is/tIYiD
