TV criticism: Maischberger: Merz argues social policy on the sidelines

Successful election campaigns follow a simple logic. They should make their own position visible through polarization and at the same time make clear the demarcation from the political opponent in order to enable the mobilization of the respective voter potential. It was only with Angela Merkel that the end of the political dispute became a recipe for success. The defusing of the major conflict over atomic energy by taking over the position of their political opponents was the masterpiece of power-political opportunism. This gave her the role of a seemingly non-partisan Federal Chancellor who left the lowlands of political trench warfare to competition.

But that depended on the economic circumstances: The Chancellor was lucky enough to be lucky in terms of economic policy because she was allowed to rule an upswing country after the collapse of financial capitalism in 2008 at the latest.

High economic growth with a competitive industry, falling unemployment, rising wages and social spending.

Even the arch-liberal Economist praised Germany in the highest tones.

Now he is writing a swan song for Germany before the imminent end of the Merkel era.

Helpless Friedrich Merz

Against this background, one had to watch the discussion between Hubertus Heil (SPD) and Friedrich Merz (CDU) in Sandra Maischberger's broadcast. From an election point of view, it offered everything the voter needs: Clear positioning of both top politicians, albeit with a clear winner. Merz seemed helpless in the issues raised on tax and social policy. He made the debate about how to deal with the solidarity surcharge a question of decency towards taxpayers. Only his own party had agreed to the compromise with the Social Democrats, which decided that it would continue to exist for the high income groups.

Heil also made it clear why he considered this compromise to be justified for fiscal and distributional reasons. The minister did not question its abolition, but combined it with a reorganization of the income tax tariff with the same distributive effect. Merz called this a “different construction site”, for which the SPD needed a majority in the Bundestag. Heil immediately agreed. Presumably that's why the Social Democrats are campaigning.

If it had been a question of decency, the Union should have rejected this compromise and risked a break in the coalition. That might have meant new elections, but with a central theme: whether decency dictates to relieve the burden on top incomes, of all places. However, they were the big winners of globalization over the past 30 years because they were able to benefit from the tax competition that it triggered. This was based on simple blackmail because the nation states had lost control of the financial flows. If the Social Democrats had agreed to the unconditional abolition of the solidarity surcharge, they would not have had to run for this federal election. But who in the Union seriously believes that they can still win an election with “fiscal decency”?