The Gifted philosophy mediator Wolfram Eilenberger writes that Martin Heidegger "is to be regarded as a formative thought-writer of German Ecology movement of post-war: holisticism, environmental awareness, technology critique, Nature connectedness". That sounds kinda green.
Marco BuschmannIs first parliamentary director of FDP Bundestag Group and was a member of core team of FDP in exploration of a Jamaica coalition. Previously, he was head of FDP party headquarters as federal manager.
However, Heidegger was also a member of NSDAP. As university rector, he called on students: "The leader himself and he alone is present and future reality and ir law." That doesn't sound so green. But if you go to Manfred Lutz, you do. For Demoskop believes that core of Green Party is "a revolt against ' modern '". This is a parallel to Heidegger. They exercised a "green dictatorship"; Structurally, re are similarities with NSDAP. There's next parallel. "The Greens", according to Lutz, "still largely accept ir own, rar monolithic value system, which y consider to be extremely intolerant to only right and binding for m." and anor parallel.
Is this parallelization not a nonding? Absolutely. These exacerbations certainly serve marketing of book from which y originate, rar than description of reality. But is this not also true for or exacerbations? Just a few current examples: This is " most right FDP since 1968" (Reinhard Bütikofer). The FDP was "asocial" (Robert Habeck). It was a "right" protest party that was "hostile to Europe" and "hostile to refugees" (Jürgen Trittin).
One does not need much thoughtfulness to see that such attacks by Greens at FDP do not work differently from comparisons that Lutz is making to Greens. And who now thinks that Greens ' stances against FDP are " present and future reality", which in this small empathy experiment probably gives Lutz more right than intended.
The relationship between FDP and Greens has been poisoned for many years. This has three main reasons.
First, enemy images are practical. When Greens got on defensive after disastrous start of red-green federal government in 1998, Joschka Fischer had to ask only one question in order to close ranks: "Who else should govern country? Like Westerwelle? " At every FDP party congress, a punch line at expense of Greens is also a safe applause spot.
Secondly, Greens have a very homogeneous core chain. The Sinus Institute has created a unique concept for this: social-ecological milieu. It has rigid notions of good life. These differ sharply from milieus that make up much more diverse hard core of FDP supporters. If both parties want to mobilize ir core followers, this inevitably leads to content conflicts. That's not really a problem. But homogeneity in green core of Greens makes a political position quickly grow into an apparent truth due to lack of internal contradiction. The counter-position quickly appears as heresy. It is known to belong to pyre. The heat in confrontation is increasing.
Date Of Update: 06 April 2018, 12:02
