TV criticism “plain text”: Does the AfD now stand for welcome culture?

Die erste Frage, beim Blick ins Studio: Hatte das ZDF dieses Mal für eine ausgewogene Besetzung des Publikums gesorgt? Oder hatte es wieder, wie beim „Schlagabtausch“ vergangene Woche, vor allem Berliner Studenten eingeladen, die dann ausschließlich linken Politikern applaudieren würden?

Nein, dieses Mal scheinen die 120 Bürger auf den Rängen einigermaßen repräsentativ ausgewählt worden zu sein: Man sieht, und hört später, Jung und Alt, Deutsche mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund, Geschäftsführer im Anzug und Arbeiter mit sächsischem Akzent. Um Vorwürfen der Intransparenz von vornherein das Wasser abzugraben, erwähnen die Moderatoren etwaige politische Affiliationen gleich bei der Vorstellung: Es sprechen demnach unter anderem zwei Grünen-Mitglieder, ein CDU-Mitglied und ein ehemaliges SPD-Mitglied. Nur Rentner sind auffallend schwach vertreten.

Also dann, wie würden sich die Kanzlerkandidaten der großen Parteien in der direkten Begegnung mit den Wählern schlagen? Olaf Scholz macht den Anfang. Er wird konfrontiert mit einer Hausfrau aus Solingen, die sich auf der Straße nicht mehr sicher fühlt, einem jungen Selbstständigen, der kein Vertrauen mehr in die Politik hat, einem Studenten aus Münster, der mehr bezahlbaren Wohnraum fordert. Der Bundeskanzler spricht besonnen, strukturiert seine Antworten klar, versucht durch Gestik und Mimik immer wieder Tatkraft und Anteilnahme zu demonstrieren.

Wenn man ihn so hört, kann man sich durchaus noch vorstellen, wie er die Wahlen vor vier Jahren zu gewinnen vermochte. Scholz entspricht perfekt dem Typus des seriösen, detailkundigen und gleichzeitig ziemlich biederen Politikers, den die Deutschen seit 1945 so schätzen. Bringt man dazu noch etwas Beschützer-, wenn nicht gar Mutterinstinkt mit, kann man auch ohne große politische Projekte gerne einmal sechzehn Jahre am Stück regieren.

What Scholz stands in the way in this election campaign and will likely limit his chancellorship to four years is simply his balance. On this evening he is also asked again and again why you should lose his promise of the future because he has implemented so little as a chancellor. His defense strategy, already tried out in the TV duel: the circumstances were simply too bad, the war in Ukraine and the dispute at the traffic light (that is implied, of course he was not responsible).

In addition, little things reveal a property of Scholz, which the Germans appreciate significantly less than the attention to detail: arrogance. When asked by the moderator Christian Sievers, he often reacts as if they are under his intellectual level, with comments like “He knows, maybe too, I hope at least”. With regard to the Ukraine crisis, he actually says that he had shown “leadership” “how you cannot have it higher”. Has Scholz changed as a chancellor, has this easy arrogance just not noticed before the last choice, or have only become manifest in the meantime?

After the chancellor handed over to his still Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, a strength of the format shows: A skilled worker wants to know why he should go to election at all because he was disappointed so often. A question that capital journalists would probably have not come. At the same time, a question that Habeck's favorite field serves: When he demands that he is positive and not as “overall”, there is for the first time applause from the audience.

Otherwise a lot of classic habeck: when the environmental bonus is abolished for electric cars, he admits mistakes, and when the questioner praises him for this admission, he explains his mistake even more in more detail – until the moderator Bettina has indicated him that too many conflicts Because also do not ensure a particularly positive overall impression. He returns the ideology allegation to those who “ideologically” held on to the debt brake (and adds a little crooked: “Ideology can only be reality today”). He speaks more alive than Scholz, jokes more, but also formulates longer and more complicated. It is regrettable that he is not asked about the migration topic, although the Greens are currently the strongest social wind.

The asylum debate, on the other hand, determines almost half of Alice Weidel's appearance. Right from the start, she emphasizes that the alleged perpetrator of Munich would never have come into the country with an AfD government or at least not here. That may sound seductive for quite a few Germans after such a day.

But then the AfD candidate for chancellor is confronted with the dark sides of her migration policy. An entrepreneur complains that his international employees no longer felt welcome in view of the tightened debate. A nursing manager even brought a geriatric nurse from Georgia, whose application for asylum was rejected and who can only live and work in Germany – in the eyes of the AfD, preferably no longer at all?

Weidel tries to appease: she wants to distinguish between sensible immigration into the labor market and problematic immigration to the asylum system. The geriatric nurse does not want to deport them, on the contrary: “After two years, they speak German so well – wow!”. Many from the Union and even the SPD would undoubtedly sign such differentiations.

Weidel is still not decreased: First, because according to its election program, the AfD wants to abolish the employment enthusiasm, i.e. deport them, especially those who have already found a job, like geriatric nurse. Secondly, this election program definitely gives a section in which the “immigration of qualified specialists” is required. However, so many “but” follow him that in the end one has the impression that Germany would actually not have this type of immigration. Not to mention the public appearance of the party politicians – the catchphrase “remigration” is probably not suitable for German recruitment campaigns abroad.

It is irritating how thin-skinned Weidel reacts to the criticism of the nursing manager, who criticizes the poorness of the AfD election program in his area: “I have the impression that you did not listen to me, that you have not read our election program and that you What you just said, memorized. ”When Sievers wants to make ironic and ironic, he hears“ a kind of welcome culture ”from her words, she does not take up the joke, but corrects cool with raised index finger:“ Only for qualified people, pay taxes ”.

Although Weidel endeavors to her answers in understanding and facing (“Thank you for your question”, “Thank you very much for your commitment”), but, especially towards critical inquiries, becomes increasingly sharp, mocking and sometimes almost spiteful. Perhaps it takes revenge here that AfD politicians in their partly chosen, partly imposed insulation otherwise rarely have to deal with people who are neither as friendly as party parliament participants nor as hostile as the counter-demonstrators.

In any case, the questions that are asked are not sharper than the questions to other candidates. Only the audience might have been able to hold back a bit in the Weidel-Critical applause-on the other hand, it also competes for a party that still sees a large part of the Germans as the greatest possible political evil.

Accordingly, Friedrich Merz, the last one that evening, can score with the AfD with an emphatically presented rejection of a coalition. Otherwise it also looks confident, seems to feel more comfortable in the citizens' consultation than on Sunday in the TV duel.

The questions also make it relatively easy for him: when the program progresses, apparently increasingly encouraged, they sometimes interrupt Merz so often that he can hardly finish a thought. Their small and less systematic criticism has the paradoxical consequence that Merz is hardly challenged in terms of content. Unlike in the TV duel, for example, the foggy financing of the CDU control program, for example, does not talk.

Finally, this reveals a weakness of the format. In exchange with the citizens, some personal characteristics of the candidates may be better evaluated, their words can undergo a “reality check”. However, the political differences emerge less sharply, if only because every candidate wants to accommodate the respective questioner as possible. Habeck suddenly stands for internal security and Weidel for welcome culture. If you prefer the direct discussion, you should turn on on Sunday: Then the four candidates for chancellor meet RTL for the “Quadrell”.