The technocratic class tends to hero-worship the German state for its efficiency, pragmatism, post-war modesty and liberalism. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel is remembered as their standard-bearer: strong, rational, in possession of the stern dignity every leader should aspire to. John Kampfner’s 2021 book How the Germans Do it Better: Lessons from a Grown-Up Country represented the acme of this sycophancy.
Few titles have seemed so out of date so quickly. In the past week the German economy has entered complete crisis. The price of electricity is surging, currently at 14 times the average. A recession is predicted, inflation already soaring. The Euro has dipped beneath the dollar for the first time since its conception. And most of the German population are not happy with their leadership. What happened to Europe’s modern success story?
The economic historian, Professor Wolfgang Streeck, has long been a critic of Merkel-mania and never fell for the Kampfner school of thought. He foretells that a combination of historic policy failure and the breakdown of the ‘globalised economy’ will lead to the demise of German dominance in Europe. Germany’s fall from grace will be precipitous, and its effects will be widespread. As the war in Ukraine rumbles on, a strategically independent Europe will give way to reliance on America, and the strength of the European Union will ebb.
The conditions that led to Germany’s astronomic rise – a globalized economy, minimal barriers to trade, an artificially low euro – are collapsing. Today, the optimism that once surrounded Germany and its too-big-to-fail state looks increasingly naïve.
“There was a very strong belief that the kind of borderless global economy in which Germany thrived would exist forever. In other words, that globalization had reached a stage where it was irreversible,” Streeck says.
Fast forward thirty years and we have learnt that the globalized economy, integral to Germany’s success, is in fact highly sensitive to “crisis, interruptions, fractions.” This is best evidenced by the shockwaves caused by the invasion of Ukraine, mounting tensions between the West and China, and disruptions to supply chains caused by the pandemic.
“We hear that we should no longer trade with China. Now you can imagine a company like Volkswagen, which is selling more cars in China than anywhere else in the world, may have a real problem if the Chinese market is closed for German products, in the same way in which the Russian market is now closed for German products.”
As hopes for a permanent globalized utopia dissolve, Germany will face “an enormous adaptation.”
First, it will have to endure a hard winter made all the worse by an energy crisis of a scale not seen in generations. Germany’s over reliance on Russian gas will make it particularly painful, and should be understood as one of the worst examples of short-termism in political history. The Greens anti-nuclear bent is encoded in their DNA. And since the 1970s both the German Social Democrats and Christian Democrats have been competing to pull the party into a coalition, the price of which was an anti-nuclear policy.
When Angela Merkel came into power, she was a fanatic supporter of nuclear energy. But when she wanted to change coalition partner from the Social Democrats to the Greens, within a matter of weeks, she restarted Germany’s de-nuclearisation. “This is the reason why energy had to be bought somewhere else. Because we couldn’t produce it anymore.”
The consequences of this crisis on the European Union will be profound. Germany and France are the central locus of EU power in the European Union, akin to an empire powered by the centre but in which the periphery benefited sufficiently. But when the center starts to crumble, what happens to that periphery?
“The Union is already on the brink of disintegration. Think about the Eastern countries – Hungary is playing the role of a spoil sport. Poland has its own ideas of what the EU is for, namely to help Poland prosper and nothing else. And anti-German sentiment, both in the East and in the South is absolutely growing. Meanwhile, Britain has left.”
Simultaneously, calls for extending membership to Ukraine and several Balkan states are growing louder. They will have to be subsidized by the central economies but will also shift the power balance in the Council, and the whole system will become politically untenable.
“The result is that I think the European Union will lose significance for its member states in a gradual process of decay, where increasingly you’ll find sub-collections of member states like the East, like the Mediterranean, doing their own thing.”
Might even Germany turn its back? As it navigates the vast impending hardship Streeck thinks we ought not rule it out. When Trump was elected he inherited a nation in decrepit condition. And the American electorate, in its majority “pointed out that they now wanted a government that took care not of an empire, but of America itself. That was the idea of America First. The Trumpian America First thing was not “Now we are going to conquer the rest of the world, but it was quite the contrary: “Now we must take care of our own country.”
If a Germany First movement is conceivable, the war in Ukraine could be the ultimate catalyst. In spite of early claims that the invasion would be complete in 3 weeks, the stalemate shows no signs of abating.
“Wars always take longer than expected when they begin – they feed themselves, and the more difficult it becomes to try to reach out and make an agreement.”
As the war drags on, the emerging global power dynamics will become further entrenched. The Eurasian continent will become divided. On one side a “Russian-Chinese alliance, where the Chinese call the shots.” And on the other, a Europe that has little strategic autonomy but instead acts as an auxiliary force “in the upcoming battle between the United States and China.”
Germany will find itself strategically and economically diminished, its European superpower status a casualty of a radically changing world. The global economy, in its current form, is proving itself unsustainable. And in its place arrives a bifurcated world with an American sphere of influence and a Chinese sphere of influence. In between will sit weakened and fractious Europe forced into the United States’s orbit.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYou know, I don’t know how many sob stories on reality TV or TikTiok I’ve heard about “I was picked on relentlessly so I showed the bullies and became a great person”. It’s like a continual testimony that bullying works. It’s so natural amongst kids, that literally ALL of us can remember a time we were ‘bullied’. Yet here we are telling kids to accept everyone and bullying is bad and what do we get? This woke ass nonsense that’s destroying society.
Having known nothing about the show, I recently came across the book What Not To Wear. In it the two of them contrast good and bad styles for various given problem areas.
It was certainly interesting, but very much highlighted to me that their recommendations are really quite subjective. Yes, a preference for symmetry and “healthy” looks is probably universal, but even what the latter means has varied quite a bit over time. When it comes to clothes, then, there are plenty of clashing opinions.
I think that’s where the classist and snobbishness accusations come from: a sense that these particular opinions were being elevated above all else.
Trinity and Suzannah are a pair of nasty privileged women. I am unsurprised that you like them.
Living in another country I’ve never had a chance to watch that show but it sounds like something I would have enjoyed. I find the show Absolutely Fabulous Hilarious.
AbFab is totally different, and yes it was extremely funny.
A couple of decades ago, Joan Rivers, a brilliant and brutal comedian who got her start back in the Sixties, had a show where she critiqued the gowns that actresses were wearing on the red carpet for the Oscars. I like watching the mostly beautiful gowns, and then I discovered Joan’s show. Her takedowns of the actress’s gowns, were hilarious. Gowns I would have thought were pretty, suddenly were outrageously ugly. She never attacked the women’s looks, after all they were all gorgeous. But the dresses were fair game. I guess for Joan, and me, it was a way to make us feel better about ourselves. But it was not very nice.
I was with it until “Women are all in this together.”
Maybe I’d read better if I scrolled faster.
“massive knockers”.
I have enjoyed Ms Stock’s writing in this organ for sometime. A very thoughtful and intelligent person who writes clearly for the likes of me.
However, seeing use the phrase “massive knockers” makes me forever her slave.
They were wonderful, educational and empowering for women, encouraging everyone to work with their positive features rather than emphasizing the negative. I miss them.
If only we’d known at the time! I remember the uproar every time a female politician (or other prominent figure) was criticised for her fashion choices. This was sexist, and would never be done to man. If only we’d realised at the time that it was actually empowering.
I can’t say I ever watched it. Probably caught a glimpse and decided it wasn’t for me. Of all the things to get nostalgic about, female meanness seems an odd choice.
Besides, there’s still plenty of it on the internet, and men are still a socially acceptable target. Take, for example, the various bizarre “relationship tests” doing the rounds.
And there’s plenty of anti female female stuff if that’s what you’re looking for, though it tends to focus on genuinely poor female behaviour rather than bad clothing choices.
I thought our overlords were the patriarchy. Have I missed some sort of revolution? Why are people still blaming the patriarchy for stuff? Confused!
Great entertaining article KS ( Nice to have a break from overly worthy up-tight stuffy pants articles !!!) I always thought of T&S as the Fashionista Storm-troopers but they were hilarious & never did take themselves TOO seriously….blimey it wasn’t all that long ago but WTF has happened to our ability to differentiate between humour & po-faced outrage at any alternative view to the approved doctrine….The hideous nonsense of ‘Be Kind’ parroted by the real social fascists of today would be funny if it wasn’t utterly depressing & grim
What has happened? Tony Blair made our kids all go to university to be brain washed by humourless, nihilist Marxists. The result has been to almost completely expunge British eccentricity and individuality and replace it with a group think adherence that would have impressed a pre enlightenment Pope.
In Cambridge Arts Theatre’s “Cinderella” this year there aren’t any Ugly Sisters – they’re “Wicked Sisters”, but at least they’re still blokes in frocks
But “wicked” in youth speak means “great” or presumably when it comes to looks very attractive
No no no. That’s wikkid!
You ain’t down wid da kidz like wot I iz, old thing
You are just down with the dyslexic ones
Brilliantly observed and laugh out loud funny, kathleen Stock is fast becoming a national treasure.
If I may add one absurdity to the pile, I recently heard a young (overweight, very average) young woman on an American panel discussion say that she had spent a great deal of money on therapy to convince herself that she is a 10 out 10 when it comes to beauty.
This “women are all tens stuff” is very striking, though I don’t know how widespread it really is. The idea seems to be that you should be confident and full of self belief – rather than that women actually are. Though it does seem to be the case that women overestimate themselves relative to men.
Uh, men overestimate themselves, too. It’s called trying to get a date with a good looking person.
‘The sociologist Angela McRobbie has even written about its “post-feminist symbolic violence” towards working-class women, in the form of “public humiliation of people for their failure to adhere to middle-class standards in speech or appearance”.’
What on earth is post feminist symbolic violence. Well we loved it, watched it every week, I didn’t realise they were slammed by socioligists with no sense of humour.
‘ The transgressively unrestrained jibes were equally distributed, it seemed to me.’
I agree, the ladies in our house didn’t feel like persecuted working class women anyway, do you think the sociologist lady actually asked any working class ladies what they thought before she got her pen out to protect us from’ post feminist symbolic violence,’.
‘ spitting out their damning verdicts in cut-glass tones with an air of pernickety feudal lords,’
This is so funny. That’s what we used to do when we watched it too. Probably without the cut glass tones though and more swearing. It’s very cathartic.
‘I think that most of us looked on with sympathetic fellow feeling, and came away with some relief and even hope. Instead of private, shame-filled self-chastisement about a particular problem area, perhaps we could just accept that everybody has one or two of the blasted things, then go shopping to celebrate.’
Absolutely. They did do a good job too, the transformations using just clothes, hair and makeup were pretty fabulous, I’m pretty sure most of the ladies that took part were really pleased too.
‘ Back then, we even called them Trinny and Tranny and nobody lost their jobs’
Can we have those days back please.
“Women are all in this together, was the underlying subtext”. Except that’s not really true is it. Nature is very unfair in its distribution of physical comeliness. This is something that will always cause disappointment and resentment in the less lucky ones. And it is something that tends to get shied away from in journalism…. the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired. The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of prettiest women and the less attractive ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ rarely gets acknowledged.
So there’s ‘What Not to Say’ and then there’s ‘What Not to Notice’.
I, too, watched WNTW with my bootcuts “flapping round my ankles” and think you’ve got this spot-on, and given me a laugh in the process! Far better to swap the polo neck for the scoop, than to be marched off for nips and tucks à la “Ten Years Younger”…
I never watched Trinny and Susannah, but I do also miss the almost casual cruelty of TV in the noughties. Not the cruelty itself, but the freedom of expression that made it possible. We have indeed lost that.
I loved them. They were super funny and yes, they managed to get all shapes and sizes looking good in the right clothes.
Typo:
“Yet strangely, this doesn’t seem to have made women any less content.”
“…any more content”.
Thanks for rectifying.
Stock is really getting into the whole reactionary gammon thing isn’t she. All for a few clicks from the swivel eyed loons. Slightly sad isn’t it?
Not so sure about that, but I do feel that she is perhaps re evaluating feminist ideas from the past which she perhaps once agreed with. I thought this was evident in her book as well.
I wasn’t that keen on this piece. TV programmes based on low level meanness just aren’t my cup of tea. The only good thing about it is that it is a timely illustration of what is wrong with the Manichaen men bad, women good view of things.
To me the article, which I enjoyed, basically highlighted the freedom of speech which we have lost to the snow flake, “I’ve been insulted generation”. It was a show of its time, and obviously appealed to many people, me being one of them. One could at least learn something from it, and the participants took part willingly.
The loss of this show might partly explain why our TV news presenters are so badly dressed. I swear I’ve seen Ugg boots on one presenter. And no, they weren’t on location they were in the studio!
And yes it does matter. You’re on TV for crying out loud. Make an effort. It’s pathetic.
What nonsense you old codgers talk!
OMG – not Ugg boots! It’ll be jeggings next!
Note to Poppy Sowerby: This is how to write intelligently about popular culture.
You’re channelling your inner Trinny there, Geoff.
I prefer to think of it as my Knowall Goodall, Lancs.
Sad, old man. You probably believe that young people should be seen but not heard. Poppy is a different generation from Kathleen and writes about a different generation with an understanding that many of the people she writes for are detached from her subject matter.
Not really. Poppy might one day match Kathleen Stock’s wit and insight, but she’s not there yet. This is not a criticism, just an observation that she’s younger and less experienced.
The difference between the neo-Victorians and the originals is that the neo-Victorians manage to be both priggish and crass. The Victorians may have been a bunch of self-righteous stuffed shirts, but at least they had manners. Today’s Grundys will attempt to shut down behavior they find objectionable in the most offensive, confrontational way possible, and believe that doing so is a sign of moral character. And for extra churlishness, their prudery is based not on a genuine concern for improving public morals but out of ideological one-upmanship and totalitarian political peevishness, making them more kin to the Maoist Red Guards than to Bowdler or Comstock.
The neos never had the advantages of the Church of England.
We used to be able to laugh at ourselves in a time not that long ago. People took themselves less seriously and felt no need to pose in faux outrage on behalf of some group that never asked to be pitied.
There is an unmentioned difference, too, between these women and the Cowell/Ramsey programs. The two guys are bashing people to their faces in an environment where the point is to be a humorless a$$ho!e, not to make crack one-liners.
“We used to be able to laugh at ourselves”
I still laugh at you all the time…
“I still laugh at you all the time…”
But not at yourself, which both makes his point and explains your own inability to ever say anything insightful or perceptive.
Took the words right out of my mouth!
Well there is a lot about you to laugh at
That’s two upvotes from me already. The rest has done you good. You’re on form.
What a hoot! I used to watch the US version for years, and it was VERY different. A lot tamer. Probably a lot less fun.
LOL I used to think (US show) Stacey was too brutal at times — but I realize now that I felt this way because she wasn’t funny! And she didn’t turn the spotlight on herself like these two did.
Excellent point that “the televisual theatre of cruelty didn’t disappear, it just changed tack.” I watched Ramsay for a while, but eventually felt disgusted and stopped. Such a small man.