Friedrich Merz’s Fragile Victory

Friedrich Merz, the new German chancellor, is the first head of government in the federal republic to be elected only in the second round of voting. The coalition of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and center-left Social Democrats (SPD), which claims to represent the “political center saving democracy,” obviously lacks a stable majority. This is largely because the left refuses to work with the so-called “fascist” Alternative for Germany (AfD), the second-largest party in the Bundestag following the 2025 election, and pressures the CDU to follow their example. 

Merz’s election on May 6 took place between two important events: On May 2, the domestic intelligence agency designated the AfD as “right-wing extremist.” U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio rightly criticized this classification as “tyranny in disguise.” The designation was soon suspended following a legal challenge.

May 8 marked the eightieth anniversary of the unconditional surrender of the German Wehrmacht in 1945. Unfortunately, it seems that not much has really changed since then. Numerous recent events in Germany indicate that “tyranny in disguise” is turning, step by step, into open tyranny. 

Merz is a second-choice chancellor; his government likely won’t last long. Six MPs denied Merz the necessary votes in the first round. In his second attempt, Merz received nine more votes than needed. Between the two votes, the parliamentary procedure was changed so that the second ballot could be held on the same day; otherwise, Merz likely would not have survived politically. The Bundestag needed a two-thirds majority to adjust the procedure. In order to circumvent the AfD, which holds almost a quarter of the seats, the CDU violated its own “incompatibility resolution” and worked with the Left party (formerly the Socialist Unity party of East Germany). It seems that when fighting the AfD, many things become possible.

Merz is now dependent on the far left. We may never know whether the dramatic election was a tactical maneuver by his left-wing opponents to drive Merz further into their arms. There is also discontent within the CDU about the shift to the left. Both the SPD and CDU have made so many political concessions that they’re facing internal conflict and losing their political identities. As a result, the AfD may end up the strongest party in the 2029 election, which is why there are now more vigorous efforts also within the CDU to ban it—to “save democracy,” naturally.

All this is only possible because Germany’s self-image since 1945 has been defined by its eternal opposition to National Socialism. The problem here is not, of course, the self-evident rejection of that fatal and repulsive ideology. The problem is, first, that this attitude has been elevated to a substitute religion with strong taboos, effectively prohibiting a positive German identity. Second, it allows political opponents to be discredited simply by labeling them as Nazis. And third, rejecting something negative does not automatically create something positive. Rejecting evil is one thing; identifying and affirming the good is another. 

Some Germans, such as Volkmar von Zühlsdorff, founder of the American Guild for German Cultural Freedom, have warned since 1945 that rejecting National Socialism alone is not enough to provide any lessons for the present and the future. They were right, but no one listened to them. To this day, Germany has not developed a positive vision of its postwar role beyond the condemnation of the Third Reich. That is why the SPD, Greens, and Left can pressure the CDU by calling everything to the right of them “fascist.” Merz’s chancellorship is a direct expression of the stagnation that has prevailed since May 8, 1945. 

Of course, back then, the attitude of turning away from National Socialism was often informed by shock, remorse, and a desire to make amends. But eighty years later, it has mutated into a strong instrument of power, into the driving force behind a creeping coup d’état.

This change also affects foreign policy. On May 8, in a speech to the Bundestag, German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier invoked the lessons that Germany claims to have learned from history. He then immediately abandoned realism and opened a propaganda battle on two fronts: “The fact that the United States, of all countries, which played such a decisive role in creating and shaping this [postwar international] order, is now turning away from it is a shock of unprecedented magnitude. And that is why I speak of a double epochal rupture with history—Russia’s war of aggression and America’s breach of values—that is what marks the end of this long twentieth century. . . . For us, there can be no sleepwalking hesitation. . . . Let us stand up for our values. Let us not freeze in fear! Let us show self-assertion!”

“Sleepwalking,” “epochal rupture”—Steinmeier’s language has been used in Germany for decades in reference to its own failures and crimes in the twentieth century. The fact that it is now arrogantly being applied to the U.S. unfortunately shows that Germany has learned little from its own past.

Image by the European People’s Party, via creative commons. Image cropped.