Henry Morgenthau Jr., Treasury Secretary under Franklin D. Roosevelt, called his book about defeated Germany “Germany Is Our Problem” in 1945. More than 80 years later, The Atlantic magazine quotes the cover to say that Germany's feared rightward drift should be of particular concern to Americans. Among the analyzes by US media before the election in Saxony-Anhalt, Isaac Stanley-Becker's text stands out as particularly alarming. The “German question” is back: Germany, with its middle position and its economic and military strength, has repeatedly presented Europe with huge problems. Stanley-Becker thus defines the historical fall height as a maximum.
When it comes to the powers of a German state government, a little generosity helps. His future scenario leaves out federalism: an AfD government under Ulrich Siegmund abolishes the right to asylum, revokes the residence permits of convicted foreigners, and cuts off Ukrainians' refugee status and social benefits. Much of this is not something a state government could easily implement, but it certainly helps convey the drama of the moment to American readers.
The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, sticks to the areas in which the AfD could actually act immediately. The newspaper reports from Dessau about the party's attack on the Bauhaus, which it accuses of "uprooting" and a modernity that is disconnected from home and tradition. The “New York Times” is also interested in the concrete consequences of an AfD taking over government. German authorities were already discussing how such a state government could restrict access to secret service information, the newspaper said, citing anonymous sources. This raises the question of how far a “defensive democracy” can protect itself against a party if it acquires power through elections.
Right-wing media such as Fox News and “National Review” have so far reported less on the election in Saxony-Anhalt, but have reported regularly on the AfD, which Fox sees as a “conservative party” that faces “left-wing agitators” at demonstrations. From the perspective of the American right, the German dispute can easily be translated into the culture war here: a conservative opposition is fighting against a liberal establishment that is trying to keep them out of power. Trump's deputy, J. D. Vance, reiterated this interpretation when he accused European elites of ignoring millions of citizens in Munich last year.
The AfD as a party of the left behind?
The American media also wants to find out who these citizens are. Some follow the interpretation that the 40 percent of possible AfD voters are primarily “left behind” masses. For the business news service Bloomberg, Berlin correspondent Alan Crawford looked around Halle and, in addition to a swastika graffiti at a regional train station, not only came across a wide range of historical evidence from Luther to Goethe to Himmler, but also possible explanations for the “forces that are tugging at Germany's post-war consensus”.
The author describes Saxony-Anhalt as a victim of East German “marginalization”. Lower wages than in the West, fewer opportunities for young people and inadequate schools, medical care and transport connections have generated the anger from which the AfD benefits. In fact, there is a shortage of teachers and canceled classes in the state, for example. When American readers hear the description “inadequate schooling” used by Crawford, they are likely to think of local public schools in desperately poor areas that lack basic necessities.
The narrative of the marginalized as a radicalization pool is again familiar in the USA. Since Trump's first election victory, his supporters have often been described as the ones left behind. That's not wrong for some people, but others are not economically disadvantaged compared to other people where they live. Motives such as racism can be minimized through such generalizations. Stories like Bloomberg's tell us what AfD voters complain about and sometimes too little about what many of them want politically.
