column
Fried – view from Berlin
Politicians and their past: Can you compare Hubert Aiwanger and Joschka Fischer? Naturally!
Hubert Aiwanger and Joschka Fischer: The biggest difference between the two cases lies in their historical classification star– Columnist Nico Fried
© Illustration: Sebastian König/Stern; Photo: Henning Kretschmer/Stern
Hubert Aiwanger has been criticized for a disgusting leaflet. His defenders refer to Joschka Fischer and his past. You can draw this comparison: one has declared himself, the other has not.
This reaction is now called “Whataboutism”. This means that when a person is criticized, their defenders attempt to criticize another person for the purpose of relativization. They ask: “What about …?”, in German: “What about …?” The aim is to show the critics that there are two standards: you punish one and let the other go. It is true that whataboutism is often a diversionary tactic to avoid having to deal with the core of the allegations. However, it is also true that whataboutism is sometimes used as a catchphrase to stifle a discussion that could well be worthwhile – as in the case of Aiwanger and Fischer.
Aiwanger escapes the pressure
So you could deal with Aiwanger’s possible offense and its importance for today – if he did it himself. Yet everything Aiwanger had described up until earlier this week boiled down to evading the pressure, not explaining what happened when he was 16 and why.
Joschka Fischer, who was already an adult at the time of his career as a demonstrator and stone thrower, had already acknowledged his past before he became foreign minister, at least in general terms. After 2001, when the star Printed pictures that showed him abusing a police officer, Fischer explained further – sometimes with concrete memories, sometimes with gaps in the memory, sometimes convincingly, sometimes less convincingly. But at least one could discuss and evaluate his portrayal, which was highly controversial for weeks.
Fischer recognized a mistake in good time
The ability of democracy to integrate was a major topic in the debate about Fischer. Until then, it had an ambivalent reputation because it had enabled a Nazi like Hans Globke to continue his career in the Chancellery. In the case of Fischer, on the other hand, it was positive that would-be revolutionaries can also become democrats.
The case of Hubert Aiwanger is different because he does not hold the current democracy in high esteem. He recently called on the audience at a rally to take back democracy, shortly thereafter he described it as only “formal”. So it is doubtful whether Aiwanger attaches importance to the integrative power of this democracy or whether he personally expects more from deliberate distancing.
The biggest difference between the two cases lies in their historical classification: Fischer’s street fighters were at the beginning of a radicalization of the left, from which he distanced himself late, but credibly and permanently, when in the RAF terrorism and the murder of Hanns Martin Schleyer “the shot in the neck language of the Nazis”, as he put it. Fischer recognized a mistake in good time. The leaflet from the Aiwanger company, however, refers to a story whose bestiality was well known 35 years ago in every respect. Making provocative jokes with it was no longer a mistake in 1987, but just a lunacy.