Armin Laschet distances herself without naming a name, and Annalena Baerbock exercises self-criticism without admitting a mistake. Is that good crisis communication between two candidates for chancellor?
It was eight words, nothing more and nothing less. But they roared through the German forest of leaves, struck a hook in the collective memory. “Also just a person”,. “A glimpse of hope”, . “Respect, Mrs. Chancellor!”,.
Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) had admitted a mistake. In a clarity or rarity that evidently justified the numerous headlines. “This mistake is solely my mistake,” at the end of March. Merkel asked the citizens for forgiveness, she took responsibility for the “Easter peace” chaos. Many showed her great respect for this, including an angry Federal Republic.
The candidates for their successor, Armin Laschet (CDU) and Annalena Baerbock (The Greens), should wish for such words of appreciation. They say (Laschet) or (Baerbock). Both chancellor candidates currently have to deal with crises that could develop into tangible problems in their election campaign – possibly also because they lack clear words.
Laschet distances himself from his, well, controversial party friend Hans-Georg Maaßen – without giving his name. And Baerbock apologizes, more or less, in the plagiarism debate – without admitting a mistake. Is that good crisis communication between two candidates for chancellor? “Both examples are ultimately rhetorical tightrope acts, but for different motivations,” says Eric Wallis, a PhD in linguistics and an expert in campaign analysis stern.
The problem with no name
Perhaps Laschet thought he could sit out the topic, sometimes ignore it, which can be a virtue in the constantly agitated political scene. But the pressure was apparently too great.
It was again. Once again, the former President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution criticized the political balance of public broadcasting. This time he called for the “biographies of some editors to be put to the test”, a test of disposition for journalists, so to speak. The outcry was great, even in our own ranks. Only the party leader himself could not find a clear word for Maassen,, in public.
Until last Monday. At least internally, the CDU boss distinguished himself, although he is said not to have called him by name. The statements are “not helpful” for the CDU, Laschet is said to have said at the meeting of the party executive. “Such debates harm us,” the media quoted him as saying. The public (and personal) distancing took place a little later – but by Secretary General Paul Ziemiak.
In this respect, it would be interesting to see how Laschet would express himself in the live interview with “Brigitte” () on Wednesday. As expected, he distanced himself from Maaßen – without giving his name. The explanation: “I just have no intention of enhancing every comment that he makes in the course of the next few weeks by positioning myself against it myself.”
A fight against windmills, an unnecessary one at that? Possible. In any case, Maassen’s remarks come at an inopportune time. The Union was able to extend its lead in polls to the Greens, now the ex-constitutional protection chief could become a burden shortly before the federal election.
Laschet presumably relied on being able to keep the subject silent in order not to inflate it further. After clear criticism, he obviously found himself under pressure to take a stand. Somehow. A smart move?
This is what the expert thinks: “Laschet operates a kind of search engine optimization with a name avoidance strategy. If the headlines on the Internet and in the newspapers were ‘Laschet wants to throw Maaßen out’, the CDU would lose a lot of votes, especially in the East. On the other hand, it would be a flank for its political opponents open, if he would not distance himself from Maassen’s AfD positions. They would then immediately take a tremendous grip on him. So he stands between the chairs and only manages to get out of it with the most unclear language possible. This is an old campaign principle, which goes back to Quintus Cicero (brother of Marcus Tullius) and ultimately means: Flatter everyone and promise everyone everything as possible.
Sorry, not sorry
The breaking news even carried the label “Exclusive”, although the explosiveness of its content was not immediately apparent: the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” reported on Wednesday evening. In fact, the report has an almost curious unique selling point.
In it, Baerbock publicly admits for the first time that she could have done something differently – although she avoided the word “error”. “In retrospect, it would certainly have been better if I had worked with a list of sources,” she told the newspaper. And: you take the criticism “seriously”.
The criticism that she means revolves around her new book “Now: How We Renew our Country”. Several passages of text are said to have been taken from other publications, some verbatim, the allegation of plagiarism is in the room. Baerbock and the Greens reject this. Either way, it has long been about more: the credibility of the candidate for chancellor.
First that, then that and now – that leaves its mark, also in the surveys. Within a few weeks, the comfortable starting position of the Greens and their candidate melted away, with both the candidate and her party losing approval among voters. While the Union moves away again. A heavy mortgage, just a few months before the general election.
Time to react, somehow. So far, Baerbock had repeatedly pointed out that, but rather “what I want to do with this country”. Based on “facts and realities” that are publicly available. As a result, she dispensed with a list of sources, as is customary with non-fiction books. The fact that she now admits that such a thing “would certainly have been better in retrospect” can therefore be understood as a self-critical admission, as can the quiet oath of disclosure that she had “briefly slipped into old trenches” in the heat of the tough election campaign. The only thing that she does not admit is mistakes, as it is called in the media. She should?
This is what the expert thinks: “Baerbock no longer has to prevent attacks, she has already been attacked by her own mistakes. She has to somehow escape the fire rhetorically. In my analysis, however, she makes the next mistake in terms of language strategy. Your admission of mistake comes, firstly: too late. secondly: noticeably indistinct and is therefore perceived as half-hearted. Although there is the political mantra: Do not apologize. This is especially true in factual politics, where you can always refer to circumstances that led to you having to do this and that. If she were to explain the circumstances that led to this snap-shot book now, she would have to admit that this book was purely a campaign tool, but she doesn’t dare to do that, and admission would be one of the few ways to get the book debate going Instead, she tries the tightrope of apologizing without apologizing, but that never really works because half apologies r always make excuses. However, this period of maturation is only an extension of the period of suffering. Because, the salami tactic, i.e. always only admitting what has just been proven, means maximum, because permanent, loss of credibility. ”
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
