Union in conflict: fight for chancellorship - or surrender?

Olaf Scholz did not do the Schröder on Sunday evening.

The last social democratic chancellor to date had treated his challenger Merkel on television in such a condescending manner in 2005 that he saved her from being dismissed by her critics in her own party after what was already considered a catastrophic election result and thus paved the way for her to her long chancellorship.

Scholz did not make this mistake.

He gave the Union the chance to settle accounts with Laschet itself.

Loud trumpeting is not Scholz's style anyway. He has others in his party for that.

From the lead of 1.6 percentage points, they deduce that the Union does not have the “moral right” to appoint the Federal Chancellor.

This is a remarkable position for a party whose Chancellor legend Willy Brandt dared to “more democracy” in 1969, even though the SPD was 3.4 percentage points behind the Union at the time.

Helmut Schmidt, whom Scholz calls his role model, was elected Chancellor twice, although the SPD was only the second strongest force in the previous federal elections.

Schröder finally stayed in office in 2002 simply because if the Union and the SPD were tied, the Greens had done a little better than the FDP.

The Greens and the FDP decide who will be Chancellor

It does not depend on the “moral right” that the SPD co-chairman Walter-Borjans claims for his party, who rules the country. According to the Basic Law, whoever has the majority of the votes of the members of the Bundestag is elected as Federal Chancellor. Such a majority could muster both a “traffic light” alliance and a “Jamaica” coalition. The Greens and FDP, which received far fewer votes than the SPD and Union, will decide who will govern the country after Merkel. Nobody questions your right to do so.

However, the two parties will only tip the scales if the Union continues to want to form the government.

Laschet had explained that on Sunday evening, and Söder had agreed with him.

But the shock in the CDU over the miserable result is so great that the first voices are advising to seek salvation by fleeing to the opposition.

The morale, already weak before the election, continues to decline.

And Söder's support for Laschet is known to be a fragile affair.

What should the pure teaching of the CDU be?

The thought of a break on the opposition benches, in which one finds new sharpness and old clout, can undoubtedly be tempting. Finally, once again, follow the pure teaching without being forced to compromise! But what the pure teaching of the CDU should be, even and especially after this election failure, opinions will differ widely.

The surviving conservatives in the CDU, who had suffered for so long from Merkel's shift to the left, draw the conclusion from the debacle: The party must move to the right again. In the east, the CDU lost many constituencies to the AfD. But not even Hans-Georg Maaßen was able to win a direct mandate there. The nationwide second vote result of the Union suffered mainly from the massive emigration of voters who went (back) to the SPD and the Greens. Laschet was not enough for them Merkel.

It is a popular claim that parties can only regenerate in opposition. If the story of its resurrection is to be believed, the SPD has just proven the opposite. She celebrates herself and is celebrated as if she narrowly missed the absolute majority. But even the SPD only won a quarter of the vote. To call the Union a “party of the fall”, as Walter-Borjans did, requires a self-confidence that cannot be justified from the difference of 1.6 percentage points. The SPD also lost a large part of its binding force years ago. The only reminder of their good old days as a people's party are the promises with which Scholz lured the voters.

In the meantime, particularly depressed circles of the CDU are thinking about whether the party might or even have to come to the country in such a dark hour - of course only temporarily, until it has recovered.

In a coalition with the SPD and the Greens, the FDP will prevent the very worst.

And then, in four years' time, the Union could put forward the candidate who did not get that far.

This now had to declare the worst CSU result since 1949 (for which Laschet is to blame) a success (for which the CSU owes its chairman).

The same applies to the SPD: first power, then morals

In 2025, Söder - or a new savior in the CDU - would have to compete against incumbent Chancellor Scholz, who would hardly want to be the first head of government to have to resign after four years.

In the SPD, too, the following applies: first comes power and its maintenance, then morality.

As her former party chairman Müntefering said: Opposition is crap.

Even if this experience was a long time ago for the CDU, it should be remembered.