Briefly unlimited – culture – SZ.de

Very few politician biographies are published because publishers expect a bestseller; many belong in the category: Nobody buys anyway, but makes something. “Let’s talk about politics,” the biography of Austrian ex-Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, which was published two weeks ago, fits into the subject: Nobody needs it, but it makes a wave.

The wave then looked like that, that there were numerous pleasant interviews and a few very friendly almost slating; In Austria, people don’t like to position themselves against someone who still has a lot of friends in the land of the Haberer and Vernaderer. Some media opted for the elegant variant: they ignored the bland little book that the ex-politician of the Krone journalist Conny Bischofsberger had spoken into the tape. Which would probably have been the best solution, because: The content – and all the more the truth – of the autobiography of a just 36-year-old ex-politician who is currently being investigated by the public prosecutor’s office is, as expected, inversely proportional to the desired effect: I’m tall, I give myself but humble and small, my heart is pure, may no one live in it but posthumous fame alone.

The editor-in-chief of the free newspaper Heute, Christian Nusser, a gifted mocker, almost ended the excitement about a non-exciter when, in his Sunday newsletter, he gleefully dissected the “absolution writing” of a man who didn’t want to have sinned at all. But then Thomas Schmid came around the corner.

For all those who still have little connection with the everyday name, its meaning for Austria can be explained with a visual comparison, the Wikipedia entry for the keyword “Boss (Cosa Nostra)”: “The boss is usually not himself in the involved in day-to-day business.As a member of the so-called honorable society it is up to him to maintain contacts (…) and to protect the interests of family to strengthen, for example through corruption, money laundering or the operation of front companies. In the spirit of the Omertà, he is sealed off from below and leaves day-to-day business to the “underboss” or the command authority on site is exercised by a “streetboss”, who acts as commander in the field.”

In any case, the aforementioned Thomas Schmid described a thoroughly comparable, political-psychological system in 15 day-long interrogations at the economic and corruption prosecutor’s office. And he put a heavy burden on the boss of bosses (in his case Kurz) and his direct sub-bosses (one or two finance ministers), numerous business and street bosses like himself, but also on Kurz’s team. Parts of his statements are backed up by 300,000 text messages he has exchanged with other members of the Famiglia over the years; he himself is sometimes condescending (those old idiots), sometimes submissive (thanks for putting me in concrete), sometimes cynical (remember, you’re the whore of the rich), sometimes pandering (I love my chancellor). It is far from clear which of all of this is true in the end, what is invented, what is punishable, what and who will end up in court.

Which brings the little book by Sebastian Kurz back into play. Because if you don’t beforebut after reads Schmid’s 454-page interrogation protocol, it offers disturbing insights into the soul of a man who, at the time of the conversations with the Krone journalist, could not have known that Schmid was testifying against him and his closest circle. This only became known shortly after the appearance of the collection of banalities (mountain tours are hard, death is unstoppable, the world is developing in the right direction despite many setbacks).

In it he attempts an offensive. Too early – and too late at the same time. In a few years he will probably have to write a self-cleansing of himself when all the facts are on the table, which he will then probably still evaluate differently, or even present differently than the judiciary and parts of the public. But now he first wants to correct what annoys him by pretending that it doesn’t annoy him. And one wonders why his good friend, whom he quotes several times, didn’t advise him against portraying himself as a naive boy from Meidling who stumbled into politics like others into a fleeting relationship.

Kurz writes that this friend once told him that he shouldn’t concern himself with “what the newspapers write”. And that it makes no sense to deal with irrelevant criticism. As a rule, he did not notice debates about external appearances. He never wanted to control media reporting, he was only concerned with communicating professionally.

That’s a bad lie, because there are dozens of editors who have experienced what Kurz meant by “unobjective criticism” and what external things he noticed. The author of these lines, who, compared to her Austrian colleagues, had a below-average number of indignant calls from Sebastian Kurz, once got a beating because the description of his voice and the effect of an appearance in parliament did not seem appropriate to him. Schmid, whose statements must of course be treated with caution because renegades tend to be particularly harsh in their judgments of their former ideological and emotional homeland, also testified in detail to the investigators about how Kurz embellished his image using doctored surveys and manically controlled his external impact. He drew the whole, big role that Kurz, according to his own presentation, never had: that of a powerful person who had the last word and used his position where possible. Kurz describes himself as a team worker, a do-gooder, an “optimist” who just wanted to “make his contribution”. As nice as his grandmother, who has been quoted several times, probably didn’t imagine politics.

“Let’s talk about politics” doesn’t talk about politics; rather, one looks at what he has created and sees that it was good, that he was good, “professional and conscientious” to be precise, and the only question that remains is: does he believe that himself , does he really believe all this?

Briefly against Schmid, 24 chapters against 454 pages, that’s a strange match, one paints himself as an idealist whose only weakness may have been a certain perfectionism, the other paints him as an unscrupulous doer who wanted to shoulder the “all the blame” on him in what Kurz, according to his own statements, did not do at all. Sometimes you almost feel sorry for the man while reading: someone is very, very angry and very offended. And I don’t want, may, can’t show it.

source site