#showerthoughts on #politicalcapital
That the German SPD and FDP position themselves against green policies might actually be quite smart. This way, they force the greens for (fiscal) concessions for those areas where all parties differ while still getting green policies “for free.”
So even when we assume green policies objectively serve the greater good, it makes still sense to be against them as center-party to gain political capital.
Also, green voters lose politically on other fronts.
This is naive game theory of course and likely backfires in all kinds of ways. (Frustration and right wing voting? Anti climate narratives the central parties might not want themselves, necessarily?) But I wonder what the effect is when one (idealistic) voter group prioritizes the greater good over their own needs contra everyone else…
I mean, there are plenty other issues those demographics care about, education, mobility, inheritance taxes, …
What I like about this idea is that it breaks with the “the other side is evil” narrative but introduces a “we are selfless/just don’t get power” one. I think it’s valid to say that such a decision is indeed aligned with priorities (“I’m willing to forgo other goals to ‘save the planet’”), but I hardly see this stated explicitly.
It also hints at the ongoing paradigm shift from more traditional to neoliberal values in which externalities are addressed structurally, not directly. (Or just not.)
What I mean by this: I perceive debates in Germany to be more traditional than eg in the US. There’s a stronger drive to look for collective solutions (let’s say, a more Kantian moral à la the categorical imperative). In the US, politics and ethics are much more transactional, thought of stronger in terms of contracts and power.
I’m not sure that’s aligned with reality, though. As suggested above there’s some advantage to keep part of the populace politically naive. (Politically! Not morally!)
Ben