Aerar

A commonplace of german politics

Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer

Pages


Re critique

11 May, 2010 (19:12) | media, particulars, parties, political trade | By: Aerar

(German version published on 31 March, 2010)

I have to admit that a certain FDP bashing currently (not without course) is quite modern. Therefore one needs to be careful not simply to call “Boooh” by reflex if the party’s name is mentioned and of course should not believe in everything shown on TV. So I relate to a guest post the employee of the FDP faction in the German Bundestag Steffen Rutter has written at Carta. (German) No matter how much the Carta editors welcome this essay, I by the same degree disagree with it and therefore take it as what it was intended for, as a base for a discussion.

The first thing I dislike is the polemic style which by so-called “rules” does generalize above the allowed. Maybe as an excuse one could claim that the film in the “monitor” show was ironically – but it was not polemic in my oppinion. So the guest post already made a bad start for a factual discussion.

“Introduction”)
I part the view of the author that the title of the WDR show is misleading, as in my eyes too it only deals marginally with the content. But if the editors propose models of their own I would not call this advertising.

“Rule 1″)
The tergiversation into word definitions (”Stabilisierungsmaßnahmen”) I consider as useless as the hint to the fact that the WDR itself profits of the bail out measures. Mr. Rutter neither answers one of the core questions of the film, why the creditors of banks, which lost their money in risky transactions, should regain their money more than those who invested their money into medium-sized businesses. This is not, as the author wants us make to believe about the advantages of the creditors but in fact it is about those of the debitors who would loose credibility, influence or even existance if they were not able to pay their debts.

“Rule 2″)
Here Steffen Rutter puts facts into such wrong connections that it is close to a lie. First he makes a forced deal, which at the time of its making was considered highly risky and inattractive, now when it haven’t come that worse, look like a profitable deal. In addition he does not care to mention that the debts of the HRE were paid to its debitors. But the HRE belongs to the government as the SoFFin does too. So where did the money come from in the end that has been paid back?

“Rule 3″)
Here the author tries to summon the systematic relevance which in my eyes had never been proved yet. Unfortunally I can’t confute them with my naive thoughts. But implicitly I take from his word that medium-sized businesses are not systemically relevant. Because when Mr. Rutter tells us, that here things are compared which cannot be compared, he forgets to mention that the company in the film is just one of many companies. Unfortunally it was just impossible to have them all with the film.

“Rule 4″)
With questioning the expert’s expertise Rutter at last makes a point, which he immediately loses by his polemic (”Pippi Langstrumpf”) behaviour. Also in my opinion experts should always be put in question, especially if they are explicitely chosen. For any idea, no matter how absurd, somewhere will be an expert who would confirm it. But this applies for both sides.

“Rule 5)
Whatever this section has to do with stereotypes, I don’t understand it. Neither I could not see which FDP delegate could be meant. I admit that I might have been inattentive while watching the film but the only FDP delegate I remember was Mr. Westerwelle. But no matter which delegate was really meant in my opinion delegates always speak in the name of their parties if they do not explicitely mention that they are stating their private opinion. This is even accepted by the parties themselves which are very quickly on the scene to dissociate from such “private opinions”.

“Conclusion”)
Does not exist. Pure polemic and not even really funny. More pityful, how here the chance was wasted to name the important points of the discussed film which seems quite unsystematic to me.

Oh god, what kind of people do they employ at the FDP Bundestag faction? And is Carta really sure to welcome this guest post? At least, and that has to be mentioned explicitely to be fair, this guest post is marked as a “personal opinion” and so does not reflect the opinion of the FPD faction or even the whole party.