The invocation of Konrad Adenauer’s legacy by President Frank-Walter Steinmeier to justify potential measures against the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has sparked a significant and politically charged rebuke from within the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Jens Spahn, parliamentary group chairman of the CDU/CSU alliance, has publicly criticized Steinmeier’s comparison, arguing it fundamentally misrepresents Adenauer’s political approach and risks undermining constructive engagement with disaffected voters.
Spahn’s critique, published as a commentary in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the occasion of Adenauer’s 150th birthday, challenges Steinmeier’s recent assertion in the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung’s publication “Politische Meinung” where the President linked Adenauer’s decisive action against the neo-Nazi “Socialist Reich Party” in 1952 to the present-day situation with the AfD. Steinmeier presented Adenauer as a resolute opponent of those seeking to undermine the Federal Republic, highlighting his commitment to defending liberal democracy.
However, Spahn contends that the current political climate is markedly different from the post-war era and that directly analogizing the AfD to a party explicitly glorifying the Nazi regime is both inaccurate and counterproductive. He argues such comparisons risk alienating voters concerned about issues outside the mainstream political discourse. Crucially, Spahn emphasizes that Adenauer initially sought to unify fragmented right-wing factions, pulling them toward the center and that “learning from Adenauer in our time means targeting voters.
The argument extends beyond simple disagreement with Steinmeier’s analogy. Spahn pointedly highlights Adenauer’s well-known quote, “Take people as they are, there are no others” as embodying a core Christian Democratic principle – the necessity of understanding and addressing the concerns of all citizens to combat extremism effectively. He posits that Adenauer’s strategy prioritized direct engagement with the issues fueling political radicalization, rather than resorting to punitive measures.
The debate underscores a deeper division within the conservative camp regarding the appropriate response to the AfD’s growing influence. While Article 21 of the Basic Law permits the banning of parties deemed to threaten Germany’s democratic order – a decision ultimately made by the Federal Constitutional Court – Spahn’s argument represents a cautionary voice, advocating for a less confrontational and more inclusive approach. The incident exposes a tension between a desire to isolate a perceived threat and a commitment to representing the broader spectrum of the electorate, a challenge central to the CDU’s current political strategy.