I’m not a German so take this with a massive amount of salt, but what makes them extreme-right? Is it the anti-immigrant stance or is there more that I’m missing? They just seem to be regular right wing by American standards.
The party's prevailing ethnic and descent-based understanding of the people is not compatible with the free democratic basic order. It aims to exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society, to subject them to unequal treatment that does not conform to the constitution and thus to assign them a legally devalued status. Specifically, the AfD does not consider German citizens with a history of migration from Muslim countries, for example, to be equal members of the German people as defined by the party in ethnic terms.
This exclusionary understanding of the people is the starting point and ideological basis for continuous agitation against certain people or groups of people, with which they are defamed and disparaged across the board and irrational fears and rejection of them are stirred up. This can be seen in the large number of ongoing anti-foreigner, anti-minority, anti-Islam and anti-Muslim statements made by leading party functionaries.
The interesting question is why having a different definition of the German people than "anyone who happened to come here and has lived here for a while" should be considered an extreme position. Throwing out all history and ancestry as a core component of the identity of a group of people seems rather like the extreme view.
It seems like the difference is between a cultural understanding and a legal one. The legal bar to be considered German is citizenship, which is what is being discussed in the context of a political party's official policy.
It would be an extreme view to say a person who immigrated to Germany and recently attained citizenship has more German ancestry than someone who was born in Germany to parents who were born in Germany but I don't think anyone is saying that. The point is just that "unequal German" doesn't make sense because German is referring to citizenship; it's either "German" or "not German", never "German, but lesser".
A pretty big clue is in the article:
>>> "The ethnicity- and ancestry-based understanding of the people prevailing within the party is incompatible with the free democratic order," the domestic intelligence agency said in a statement.
Regarding the AfD, ‘Senior members have been disgraced for playing down Nazi war crimes and accepting suspicious payments from Russia and China.
There were calls to ban the party when it was reported party members were at a meeting of neo-Nazis where a “master plan” to expel millions of people from Germany was discussed, including asylum seekers, foreigners with residency rights and “unassimilated citizens”.
The AfD were shut out of coalition government by the “firewall”, an agreement by mainstream parties not to work with those deemed too extreme.
JD Vance, the US vice-president, criticised the firewall as anti-democratic.’ [0]
There is plenty more on the subject [1, 2, 3, 4].
> They just seem to be regular right wing by American standards.
This might be a comment on the state of American politics as much as it is on Germany’s.
The current Russian government supports every movement that may help to destabilize Europe, extreme left or extreme right ideologies only matter to them as a tool for targeting specific demographics by their propaganda industry.
I'm Russian, and yes, absolutely, Russia would do that so long as said party is friendly towards Russia.
It's not like it would even be the first time. USSR was very friendly to Nazi Germany in 1939-40.
And in modern Russian parlance, the words "Nazi" and "fascist" don't have any semantic load other than "our enemies". For example, EU is "Nazi", while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusich_Group is not.
"extreme right" is a super set of "nazi". Putin is extreme right and not a nazi. Netanjahu is considered right extreme, certainly he is not a nazi. the list goes on.
This should tell you more about how far right America has gotten. What's your definition of extreme-right and why don't they fit it?
Both the GOP and the AFD are acting extra-constitutionally. Trump's administration has shown to Europeans that needed a reminder how dangerous these politics can be.
Is the AfD acting extra-constitutionally? Or are they just proposing to do so? They aren't actually in power, are they? If not, how are they "acting" at all?
(Not German, so I don't know. Honest questions from an incomplete understanding.)
Late answer, but: they did actually abuse their power in an unconstitutional way after last year's elections to the state parliament of Thuringia. The eldest member of the parliament was from the AfD and as such he was given the traditionally ceremonial role of moderating the parliamentary proceedings until such time as an actual president was elected. With absolutely no legal basis to do so he tried to block the parliament from voting on certain matters. The other parties had to get the state constitutional court involved who very firmly ordered the AfD to let the parliament work as intended.
While the AfD complied with the ruling (I don't really see how they couldn't have) and the crisis was ultimately averted, one should make no mistake: this was a test to see if the democratic forces were still strong enough to oppose them. For now, they were.
It's the second option. Should a party that promises to act extra-legally once they get into power be allowed to campaign? I think not, but it is not an easy question to answer.
Europeans have been reminded of the dangers of right-wing populism with what's currently happening in America.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
And yet... in the US at least, we have an avenue for that. Change the laws. The Constitution forbids what you want to do? You can change that, too. That's the route that you're supposed to take.
If you won't, and you say so publicly, and the people are willing to vote for you anyway... then the powers that be are in a tough spot. They have (at least somewhat legitimate) grounds for excluding you. And yet, they risk your popular support deciding that the system will not accept them.
What they should be doing is figuring out the reason so many people support those who want to tear down the system, and find a way to give them most of what they want within the system, and campaign on that, to cut the ground out from the outside-the-system party. But that may require more competence and savvy than the powers that be have shown...
> your definition of being extremists requires them to be the dominant party and actively committing a genocide?
No, come on, they never wrote this. Someone else wrote:
> Both the GOP and the AFD are acting extra-constitutionally.
And they asked if that was true, as well as for more details about the AFD's real political actions. That's it. It does not even remotely suggest they think the party is not extremist; in fact, they go as far as to say they have no first-hand knowledge of the situation as an explanation for the questions.
I would argue that the American right wing has actually shifted a bit leftward in the past few decades. Gay marriage is now accepted by most Republicans for example. Trump is in many ways a 90s Democrat. His stance on illegal immigration, America first foreign policy, and protectionist tariffs are actually not that extreme historically for our country. The mass deportations are a reaction to the unprecedented scale of illegal immigration that was practically encouraged by the Biden administration.
The reality is that he feels far right because most of the western world has become extreme-far left. I can think of tons of former Democrats who have been alienated by how far left the Democrats have become on social issues. Besides Donald Trump, there is also Elon Musk (he was a huge supporter of Barack Obama), Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and even Bill Maher (who is no fan of Donald Trump by any stretch of the imagination) frequently criticizes how far left the party has become.
EDIT: I’m talking about social left versus right, not economic. For the record, I think the left versus right distinction doesn’t really work given the complex modern political landscape. For Europeans that may be unaware, gay marriage and LGBT rights were actually a controversial political issue in the 90s and even early 2000s with even many Democrats refusing to back it. Barack Obama famously “evolved” his stance on this issue.
A lot of words here but not much knowledge of politics. Calling western people "marxists" while showing absolutely no clue what Marx proposed (hint: common ownership, stateless society...). If reliable healthcare for citizens is "far left" where exactly on the map would we put communism? Or what is then center, and what is right? And what is then "far right", hunting homeless for sport? I don't really care what the one or the other party trumpet claims, but I don't have to like such loud ignorance.
They also: deport citizens without due process, enforce the "unitary executive theory", defund government institutions, remove health regulations, reduce taxes...
None of these things are left-wing, by any conceivable definition of "left-wing". What the fuck are you even saying about how the rest of the world has been shifting "extreme-far left"? It clearly hasn't.
Tell me again how the weak neoliberal party has gotten far-left? Do you think gay marriage is communism or something? Because I don't see the democrats advocating for socialized ownership of the means of production or other crazy shit. Mostly they hold mild and boring technocratic views on everything, and are sometimes slightly progressive when it's convenient.
> They just seem to be regular right wing by American standards.
Sorry for the throwaway, but has Europe moved too much to the left that AfD seems like a far-right party or has America moved too much to the right that something like AfD and Trump seem like "regular right"?
The fact you have neo-nazis supporting this "regular right" should tell you that at least some of the talking points fit their views.
Something else that we should keep in mind is that there are politicians in Europe that have views similar to Bush, Nixon, etc, and I don't see anyone calling them "far-right". Conservative? Yes. Not far-right.
Do you consider Trump as regular right wing? Or more extreme? Do you think the deportations of "illegals" happening at the moment are justified? What about deportations on legals non-white people?
The main reason for the classification seems to be their worldview based on "Blood" and what they consider as a "True German", and how they want to deport (or worse) anyone who does not match this view. Their plans are similar to what is happening under Trump now, but some steps further.
And lets not talk about all the other s** around culture and science. But these are not illegal.
Trump is complicated. He doesn't neatly fit into the boxes that our politicians usually fit in. He's neither fully right nor fully left. As I have said elsewhere, I think the left versus right wing distinction is no longer suitable for talking about the current political climate. The traditional politicians from both parties despise him. The Republican rank and file have only accepted him because of his massive popularity. For example, his stimulus checks are definitely a left-wing idea. If I had to label him I would say that he is a right-wing populist.
I'm not sure why you scare quoted illegals. I refuse to use the Orwellian Newspeak that is "undocumented." They have "documents." Just not ones that give them any right to legally be in our country, hence why illegal is the correct term.
The Biden administration encouraged mass illegal immigration into our country on unprecedented scale and it has resulted in a lot of very serious problems, so yes extreme deportation measures are absolutely justified. There are several cases of people who have been violently assaulted or even murdered by violent gang members and criminals who came here illegally. There are people who have suffered horrifically for this and people who would still be alive today if our immigration laws had been properly enforced. Even many of the illegal immigrants themselves are suffering as victims of sex trafficking, poverty wages, indentured servitude, or dying of heat exhaustion in false panels of vehicles that are smuggling them into the country packed like sardines.
Adding to that, they are a costly strain upon our infrastructure and social support systems. Car insurance premiums rose due to the massive rise in uninsured motorists. They have exacerbated already sky high housing costs because they need to live somewhere. When they get sick they go to the emergency room because they lack health insurance. Some of you will say, well that's why you should just have socialized medicine, but it ignores the point that we do not have socialized medicine, which means that someone has to foot the bill for their ER visits for non-emergency medical care. Many of them turn to crime because their opportunities for legal employment are non-existent. They are also a burden on our already struggling public education system, particularly since so many of them do not speak fluent English. They also depress wages. There is a myth that they perform jobs that Americans don't want to do. The truth is that they perform jobs for cheaper than Americans are willing to do them.
I'll bite, on chance this is a product of the media streams you've been watching instead of innate racism.
> There are several cases of people who have been violently assaulted or even murdered by violent gang members and criminals who came here illegally.
There are also many times the number of cases of illegal immigrants living normal, productive lives and contributing to their communities, if we're going to tie the things we mention to statistical reality.
> they are a costly strain upon our infrastructure and social support systems.
They power the bulk of American construction, agricultural, service, and landscaping industries.
> They have exacerbated already sky high housing costs because they need to live somewhere.
Illegal immigration is a drop in the bucket compared to private equity snapping up homes and rent price-fixing via RealPage et al.
> When they get sick they go to the emergency room because they lack health insurance.
> Many of them turn to crime because their opportunities for legal employment are non-existent.
I'm guessing you haven't worked too many blue collar jobs in your life...? I.e. kitchen, construction, or landscaping?
> They are also a burden on our already struggling public education system, particularly since so many of them do not speak fluent English.
Or, having to go through hell to get here, they're more motivated than their citizen by birth peers.
> They also depress wages.
You just said above they can't find jobs. Which is it? They're getting too few jobs or too many?
> There is a myth that they perform jobs that Americans don't want to do. The truth is that they perform jobs for cheaper than Americans are willing to do them.
You really don't seem like you've ever talked to a farmer. Ask one about hiring hardworking labor sometime?
Because their ideology translates to a mix of traditionally left and traditionally right policies. Broadly speaking, it tends to be extreme right culturally and center-left economically.
What you said sounded like a bold claim. I just wanted to understand if you understand the implications of applying that label. I wanted to know if you understand the reason.
I'm not gonna blindly fight based on a vague idea that history is repeating itself. Or should I? (rethorical).
You seem like a very educated person with broad historical knowledge. Why use cheap accusations to put your ideas forward? (rethorical).
What is the bold claim? That fascists refer to themselves as "third position"? That's literally textbook history. Or that modern-day GOP, now fully taken over by the Christian nationalist wing, is also a "third position" party, and that is why their de facto platform (as evidenced by what they're literally doing right now) is the way it is? That's a simple observation.
In simple terms, Trump's current administration is the AfD's wet dream. Talk big about free speech and free market, state's rights, cracking down on immigration, all the populist talking points. Then play the victim whenever things don't work out, dismantle regulatory bodies and oversight committees, and selectively apply the law depending on loyalty and conformity.
> They just seem to be regular right wing by American standards.
Correct, both have an agenda of subverting the rule of law to violate human rights of immigrants, under a flag of white nationalism. There is a single word for this.
Strongly disagree. Most right wing populist parties' policies are very pro worker. Right wing parties in USA see these policies as "socialist", anathema.
Some of their ex-members have been literal Nazis. Something that doesn't go over very well in Germany. The party banned these people but their standpoints are still very controversial, the main issue is that in some aspects they do no support the juridical system.
So yeah, regular right wing compared to American standards but I think we can all agree that respecting the trias politica is a good thing in any country.
I’ll be honest, as an American looking in from the outside, this looks like the leftist parties in Germany trying to silence the opposition. If the party is expelling the true extremists like the Neo-Nazi former party members that you mentioned, I don’t see why they should be held responsible for them.
This would be like declaring the entire American Republican Party extreme-far right because of a few whack jobs like the Proud Boys.
Opposition parties are extremely important to a properly functioning democracy.
What is so extreme and dangerous about the actual current AfD party members other than their anti-immigration stance?
They are not expelling extremists based on extremism. They are expelling extremists based on public fallout. The remaining ones are effectively their spokespeople.
Germany has a wide range of political parties that cover the entire political spectrum. A party of extremists is not needed for a strong opposition. What German politics needs is momentum, and the will to actually get stuff done, even if it'll be unpopular. The fact that the AfD managed to use and abuse that mindset to gain popularity does not make them the right ones to make a positive impact. In fact, even putting their extremism aside, their contrarian and anti-progressive "everything new is woke" mentality is the exact opposite of what the country needs, for all I care.
I've answered your last question in a sibling comment to yours.[1]
The anti immigration stance is not the problem in itself, it's a symptom of their xenophobic views.
"The party's prevailing ethnic and descent-based understanding of the people is not compatible with the free democratic basic order. It aims to exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society, to subject them to unequal treatment that does not conform to the constitution and thus to assign them a legally devalued status. Specifically, the AfD does not consider German citizens with a history of migration from Muslim countries, for example, to be equal members of the German people as defined by the party in ethnic terms."
Their anti rule of law stance, their criticism of parliament, their idolatry of ancestry, genealogy and genetics.
Also their retoric: their default stance is the fundamental attribution error (my ingroup failed because we were betrayed/cheated, your outgroup failed because you are lazy/bad/inferior). When your bonapartist (which is cesarism+nationalism basically) ideology is tinted (or tainted I would say, but I'm biased) with that reasoning mistake, you're close to fascism. Some people could call them post-fascists, but to me post-fascism died in Italy in the 80s (not true, I have a post-fascist friend, but they're extremely rare). Because they're too dumb to have real 'thinkers' (and they don't read anyway), they rehash old ideas and dunk everything at the wall to see what stick (which can work l), to me they're closer to proto-fascists (see Balkan nationalists the the late 19th century).
I'm not German but it's my understanding that nothing is being banned. This classification allows the German intelligence agencies to be more aggressive in gathering intelligence of any potential misconduct within the AfD.
I'll abstain from making any moral judgements about this, I don't feel qualified to do so but I understand that the historical context places a very large role in Germany.
Any association with Nazi's is condemned in the harshest way. The AfD has crossed that line several times in the past.
The actual leftist parties are part of the opposition. These opposition parties are much more supportive of banning AFD than the incoming centre-right government.
So obviously this is not about silencing opposition, but about fighting an extremist right wing movement which is opposing liberal democracy.
