If we continue like this, we will soon have the world’s smallest babbler with a roaring sound. Beyond objectivity, the first blow will occur, and as the arguments grow into a real debate, there will be significant gaps. And we? We’ll bend our glass eyes to the little boy and exclaim: “Hurrah, big talk!”
Olaf Schultz: “Kafka’s Adviser”?
It is a bit agonizing that one can use the estimated ZEIT, more precisely the online version of ZEIT, for speculative evidence. There, a well-known and highly respected commentator Schulz invented “Kafka the Chancellor” in a fit of rage. This chancellor, with his disguised policy, was “in the best way to burden Germany with its third war debt since 1914”. Well, whoops.
People have become accustomed to the fact that discourse makers constantly accuse themselves of sleepwalking: either a sleepwalk in World War III or a sleepwalk in Putin-enslaved Europe. Depending on whether you think it is right to provide Ukraine with heavy weapons or not. However, when the originator of the sleepwalking metaphor himself, historian Christopher Clark, who traced the path to World War I as the failure of sleepwalking politicians, spoke unsurprisingly when Clarke praised the chancellor for acting in a thoughtful manner. In the crisis – no one listens anymore. Perhaps the desire to blame Kafka’s advisor for the evil of the war was too great.
However, one has to say that Schulze’s criticism sometimes works better, sometimes less well. To put the “guilt of omission from war” that the chancellor can bear as “third war guilt” in line with Germany’s involvement in the very different guilt of World War I and World War II – you must have the courage to do so. In the past, it might have been better to leave her alone. not today. Because woe to the hanging that doesn’t come in flashy colors. No cock for that.
The art of birth debate
The commentator’s suspicions that Berlin’s Ukraine policy would make many eastern Europeans feel as if they were reading Kafka’s “trial” stimulated the imagination. It was so foolish that in the hours when commenting on ZEIT online was already making waves, the chancellor suddenly appeared and turned into a passionate monster in the Bundestag. In his response to opposition leader Mears, this flabby dancer, Mr. Schulze presented a non-Kafkaki spectacle of an exchange of parliamentary blows without a manuscript, and then announced exactly what he claimed he had failed to do because he was guilty of the war: the rendition of heavy weapons. And Schulz said: Even “heavy” weapons.
It is a pity that Olaf Federer in this life or in the future does not become a very difficult or very easy speaker nor does he become a world champion of transparency. There is a lot to criticize, no doubt. One wished to have a clear depth of clarity for this time, the speech that sends everyone down to earth in the ultra-fast heavyweight class. Habek may be this chief counsel. We only have Scholz. However, what ZEIT ONLINE posted in a later comment, once the advisor refuted the commentator, sounded a bit bland. It was said that this Schulz was fighting “against the public” in the Bundestag. Fun isn’t it? Do ZEIT commentators consider themselves and their colleagues who blame the counselor the “public”, that is, the public par excellence? And if the chancellor publicly refutes it, will this be his war against the “public”? Yes, should we discuss this now? Above all, you have to come with it. This guy actually comes up with it – that’s not a very fine sign of the art of debate that we all are born with in public.