Post: #1

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/1...iet-german

Very good analysis of Merkel's leadership style. Also, in the last part the article contains good observations on German-Russian relations during the Ukraine crisis.

Recommended, whether you like Merkel or not.

Post: #2

Haven't read the article you posted yet, but think that Merkel can obvioulsy be regarded as a "succesfull" leader. Whether you agree with her politics or not. It occurred to me, about a year ago, that the only successful female leaders in the West I could think of have come from the right/centre right. It's almost counter intuitive. For decades now the left in Western countries have been playing the gender card and have presented themselves as being much friendlier to women. But then where are their effective leaders? To my mind the only successful Western female leaders of, well pretty much for the entire modern period, have been Thatcher and Merkel. As a contrast consider the recent female Australian Prime Minister who crashed and burned after a short stint amid much whining and self-pity about "sexism". Is this the best that the modern left can come up with? It's a reason I can't support any modern party on the left, despite being sympathetic to at least some of their causes. "Identity Politics" is just killing their integrity.

Anyway, I find it very interesting that the Western left can't field a credible female leader, while the right/centre right have got it right at least twice in major countries (UK and Germany). And for what it's worth Hilary Clinton doesn't seem to me to be credible. Considering what she will have to do to stand a chance to win an election (all the gender and racial identity politics crap) in the event she is elected I predict her blowing up just like Julia Gilard.

PS: Please do point out where I am wrong. I know New Zealand had a long serving and succesfull female Prime Minister from their Labour Party, but let's face it, New Zealand is a very, very small country. I consider this "the exception that proves the rule". Also, Canada had a female Prime Minister but she served only a month or two, so you can't draw any conclusions positive or negative. In any event she was from a centre right party.

Post: #3

Quite long. Will read this and comment again when done

Post: #4

Good article. It seems we are lucky to have her riding some kind of herd on Putin.

She's an impressive lady - a power-hungry moderate.

Germany itself is impressive, they have a decent modern state without giving up old German traditions.

The writer of the piece is stretching by implying that democracy in Germany is in danger because almost everyone likes Merkel and so there is little debate. If you're governing moderately, and taking care of everyone, what's wrong with that?

Post: #5

I'm not a fan of her, but I will say that she forms an impressive contrast to the completely ineffective female leaders of Brazil and Argentina.

Post: #6

Props to her for actually having a STEM degree (physics, I believe). Her scientific background could be part of the reason why she's a decent leader. Contrast that with the US, where virtually all our politicians have slimy lawyer/businessman backgrounds, fields where you have to fuck people over to get ahead.

Post: #7

(11-27-2014 12:12 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Props to her for actually having a STEM degree (physics, I believe). Virtually all Western politicians are slimy fucking lawyers or businessmen.

Didn't know that, makes me respect her more.

I wish we had more politicians with backgrounds in fields that require more hardcore problem solving skills, instead of grey area loop holes and interpretation.

Post: #8

I used to respect her until she started supporting female quotas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...uotas.html

Post: #9

(11-28-2014 12:35 AM)Sombro Wrote:  I used to respect her until she started supporting female quotas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...uotas.html

Well, that would fit right into her style of decision making. She couldn't afford to not do it, so she does.

If I had to guess I'd say she's even somewhat of an anti-feminist.


Great article by the way. It's always interesting to see what the world says about Germany. When you live there you would never guess how influential that country is.

Post: #10

(11-26-2014 07:33 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I'm not a fan of her, but I will say that she forms an impressive contrast to the completely ineffective female leaders of Brazil and Argentina.

Miley Cyrus forms an impressive contrast to Kirchner.

Post: #11

Too long..Didn't read. But I've met Merkel and Von Der Leyen.
They worked for their positions..I respect them..They seem to do well and keep doing well.
Germany has some problem..but at least it doesnt suck like the rest of the EU

Post: #12

Thatcher also undertook a hard STEM degree - Chemistry. She was clinical, logical and emotionless, and the ideologue that the UK needed at the time to enact fundamental economic reforms, although some of her populist decisions have had dire consequences decades down the line, such as selling off the nation's social housing on the cheap, with the state now paying higher private rents for the same housing, and privatising the railways without building into this market any actual competition.

Gillard was a fake. No one at Melbourne Law School, particularly a woman, speaks with a drawl, they speak with an intelligent upper-middle class tone. She was a careerist Labor politician who opted to pursue employment and industrial relations law to build a power base among the unions. Her empty moralising on marriage, as an unwed Atheist, and meaningless embrace of climate change without soliciting global support compounded her lack of authenticity and authority, especially without having ever won an election outright.

She was never a feminist either , so her speech on misogyny was a calculated yet foolish appeal to her weakness in order to garner the female vote. Yes she was roughed up but a more aggressive response might have been to downplay her gender and instead attempt to dismantle Murdoch's conservative media empire within Australia. Even if impractical, she would have repainted her opponents in the media as being part of a neo-liberal shill racket.

Hilary is toxic.

Aung San Suu Kyi is hard as nails. No one goes up against the Burmese junta unless they have accepted imprisonment and the potential for state sanctioned torture/death.

Post: #13

I'm sorry to say but I'm certainly not a fan of her politics, although it is not easy to read her face.
The problem is that it's hard to hate on her, since she herself doesn't do or say anything directly.
All the dirty work is done by her useful idiots while she just sits back and watches.
Since she's Chancellor, almost all strong figures in politics have been removed by sudden affairs and scandals that came out of nowhere (plagiarism of doctor titles, paedophilia etc..) and have been used daily in loudmouth media campaigns until said persons resigned. All the idiots that have been there when she came into power though still are in politics and possess powerful positions.
The national media by the way has also lost all credibility since Merkel, especially in the case of Russia. It's astonishing how all the german media outlets and newspapers will write the exactly same opinions and suddenly will stop writing a single word about a event if it's required to do so.
There so many articles and daily talkshow discussions on TV with politicians, but they all never adress the serious facts or issues, anybody who maybe tries to, will get shut down directly, ridiculed, ignored and hated and shamed in a nationwide propaganda media campaign.

Where are the hard facts???

Where is the german gold and why nobody talks about the fact that we're refused to have access to our own gold?
Why does nobody talk anymore about the NSA scandal?
Why does the german state still support and even pay for the maintainance and construction of old and new US and NSA bases with german tax money?
Why do we even need those bases? In case of a war between Russia and the US, first of all Germany is fucked, because we have all the american nukes near to Russia.
Why the hell are we defending Germany in some middle eastern/asian country called Afghanistan?

Absolutely nothing changed.
Economy still is working yeah, but the real income of the german people is much lower than it was 20 years ago and taxes are horribly high too and only rise. The median income is sth around 1300 euros, which is pretty shitty and the german state still is encouraging qualified immigration because of artificial labour shortage, so that the economy can lower the wages even more.

Germany still is the lapdog of the US, it's not an independent country that can make politics for it's people best interest. In the end an occupying force first of all acts in it's own best interest.
We still have US army and intelligence bases, and even pay them with our tax money. We are simply refused to get back or even check our gold. We risk our economy and security just because of US american interests.
The US doesn't give a shit, of course, it's only better for them.
Any disturbance of the relationship between Russia and Germany/Europe will hurt both of them. Divide and conquer, simple as that.

The only hope I have is that she's actually just putting her Poker face on all the time, and waits for the right moment to abandon the sinking ship of the western indebted economy in order to join the emerging new markets.

Meanwhile Germans themselves have lost all hope for their politics. What is being potrayed in the media has nothing to do with the reality.
If somebody would blow up the Parliament with all the politicians inside, the media would whine about it, while people would be cheering on the streets.