For 16 years, Angela Merkel stood for stability in the crisis, but after that no one knew what the CDU actually stood for. Deputy party leader Carsten Linnemann urgently wants to change that and, above all, get more women and young people into the CDU. He accuses the traffic light of reacting too slowly in the crisis.
ntv.de: The Union is clearly ahead in the polls, but probably less because of its own performance than because the SPD has collapsed since the 2021 election. What do you mean, why is that?
Carsten Linnemann: Both – the collapse of the SPD and the personal contribution. There was almost no unity in the federal election campaign and now we have it, not only between the CDU and CSU, but also between the party and the parliamentary group. This is a great success for Friedrich Merz.
Were you surprised that the Union, especially the Union faction, became so peaceful so quickly?
After the dramatic defeat in the 2021 federal elections, everyone knew that we were at a fork in the road. In the Netherlands and Italy we have seen what can happen: that bourgeois parties can marginalize themselves. Everyone has recognized this danger, and that is why everyone has pulled together.
Now you usually reach 26, sometimes 27 percent. Are you happy with that?
no We must be significantly over 30 percent, better still towards 35 percent and more.
How do you get them?
By differing in substance, based on our beliefs, which we will lay on a foundation at this weekend’s convention. In Hanover we adopt a charter of fundamental values. Building on this, we will then formulate our positions crystal clear and concrete – from pensions to the question of what the future European security architecture should look like. This is taking place in the process for our new policy.
Normally, hardly anyone is interested in policy programs…
That’s why I don’t want a basic program that reads like the minutes of a tenants’ meeting. The future program should be attractive for young people, for immigrants, for all citizens. It should make you want to look to the future and roll up your sleeves. Our yardstick must be less of chasing after the zeitgeist and more of relying on our own convictions. Then we come back to 30 percent and more.
In this charter of basic values, the CDU wants to call itself “bourgeois” for the first time. Should other designations be replaced with it?
No not at all. Terms such as freedom and justice are a constant feature of the programs from 1978 to 1994 and 2007 up to the adoption of the future basic program for 2024. At the same time, we are concentrating on what really sets us apart: that – unlike other parties – we start from the individual, not from the collective. We give the penultimate answer, not the last one, because we are part of the system. We approach our tasks with humility, not with moralizing arrogance. Our principles are solidarity and subsidiarity – man is destined for freedom, but he must also take responsibility. All of these beliefs are expressed in an attitude that we call “bourgeois”.
What about “conservative”?
We have spelled out this term again, just like “Christian-social” and “liberal”. These are our three roots that we always see together.
Friedrich Merz recently agreed to a panel discussion that would also include Lindsey Graham, a formerly moderate Republican who then swung to Trump’s course. Shortly before the date, Merz canceled participation. Are there still conservatives in the USA with whom the CDU can find a level of discussion?
Yes of course. We continue to maintain relationships with Republicans in the United States.
Then why the cancellation?
That was unfortunate. There was no information about the participants of the individual panels and this was the reaction due to some misunderstandings. But I hope that such a debate with a US conservative can be repeated in a different form.
Is Lindsey Graham still a Conservative? He’s now a tough Trumpist.
Graham has changed a lot, to say the least. But that is all the more reason for meeting and exchanging opinions. That kind of thing happens way too little. And knowing Friedrich Merz, he would have given Graham his opinion crystal clear on several issues.
In the first few months of opposition, Merz noticeably refrained from fundamental criticism in the evaluation of the traffic light and criticized it more objectively and in detail. Is that the only way to do politics at the moment, pragmatically?
That’s called constructive opposition, Merz promised it and now it’s being delivered. In the future, however, we must also say more clearly what we would do if we appointed the chancellor. We may have neglected that a bit so far.
That sounds like criticism of Merz.
No, not at all, says Friedrich Merz himself. Perhaps in the early days of the opposition, there was a tendency to criticize more. That’s also human, we also had to arrive in the opposition first. But now we have to communicate more clearly what we would do better in concrete terms.
Is Angela Merkel actually coming to the party conference in Hanover?
As far as I know, no.
If you look at the 16 years of Merkel’s government, then there were a few failures – in digitization, in the expansion of renewables, in the state of the Bundeswehr, the energy dependency on Russia, depending on your perspective, perhaps also in the phase-out of nuclear energy. What do you think is the most serious omission?
Leaving nuclear power without having a clear plan on how security of supply in Germany can be guaranteed if you want to push decarbonization at the same time. We have become too dependent on Russian gas. I have to say that self-critically. Nevertheless, almost all parties, including the Greens, referred to studies at the time in which gas was always the bridging technology. That is part of the truth. But I don’t want to distract you, because the core problem is different. Something has taken root in this country that worries me.
What are you worried about?
I experienced it first-hand when I came to the Bundestag in 2009: At that time we were still stuck in the financial crisis, then the Fukushima disaster followed in 2011, and we focused on the energy transition. In 2012 the euro crisis came to a head, and in 2015 came the refugee crisis, and with it the issue of integration. From 2020 Corona ruled us and now the attack on Ukraine. As a Member of Parliament, I feel pressured from all sides, and rightly so, to take care of the crisis and its challenges in each situation: How can we shape integration, how can we defeat Covid, how can we support Ukraine? The entire operation here, legislative and executive, is constantly running in crisis mode, and we all keep saying to ourselves: When this crisis is over, then we will take care of all the outstanding issues. If we don’t solve this more or less systemic problem, the country will go to the dogs, that’s for sure.
That drastic?
Yes. We don’t stand a chance against South Korea, New Zealand, Asian countries, not even the USA if our structures remain so encrusted. Everything you mentioned becomes even more encrusted after every crisis. At some point we’ve gotten to the point where we don’t even try to drill the boards anymore because they’ve gotten so thick. Instead we paint them. If we can’t get out of this vicious circle, then that’s it.
Regarding the phase-out of nuclear power: Did you expect Robert Habeck to clear the way for extending the life of the three nuclear power plants that are still connected to the grid?
Yes I have. Because in a crisis you have to make decisions based on hard facts and not on the mood of your own party base! Last year, around 560 terawatt hours of gross electricity were consumed in Germany. Of this, 60 terawatt hours were generated from gas. The three nuclear power plants supplied 64 terawatt hours. From this it follows: If I shut down the nuclear power plants at the end of the year, I will have to generate twice as many terawatt hours of gas – and we want to become more independent. It’s hard to believe that people aren’t saying pragmatically: As long as the gas bottleneck persists, we’ll keep these three power plants connected to the grid. Actually, I would have liked the stress test to examine whether the three power plants that were switched off last year could be connected to the grid again. For a long time it won’t work for the Greens to blame us.
You were head of the SME and Economic Union of the CDU and CSU for eight years. What do you hear from medium-sized companies about the third relief package?
They ask: Have you forgotten us? The company Hakle filed for bankruptcy just this week. I’m afraid that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Unlike the last two recessions – triggered by the financial crisis in 2007 and Corona in 2021 – Germany’s business model is now directly affected.
The industry?
Small and medium-sized industrial companies contribute more than 20 percent to gross value added. No country in the world has a comparable proportion. For the first time, there is a risk of a rapid recession in this very area. This is so dangerous because anywhere in the world where existing industrial capacity has disappeared, it has never been rebuilt. For us that would be dramatic.
You just called for emphasizing more often how the CDU would act in government responsibility. What would you do differently now?
You can compare it with the corona crisis, in which we immediately took countermeasures with an emergency program. The traffic light doesn’t do that. You can accuse the CDU of a lot. But the fact that she always acted immediately in crises was our strength. The traffic light has not agreed anything with Brussels for the relief package and has not coordinated anything with the federal states. Your electricity price brake is based on air bookings. Only one working group was set up for gas. We would never have approved such a shaky package. We would have given more planning security.
The party congress will vote on a quota for women in CDU leadership positions. How do you think the delegates will decide and what do you intend to vote for yourself?
It is obvious that we have to become more attractive – for women, for young people, for immigrants. However, the quota for women does not go far enough, it will not solve the problem. We need mandatory hybrid formats so that politics can be done from anywhere. Parental leave for politicians is a very central point for me. Set start and end times for sessions. Those are actually the issues that need to come to the fore. However, I fear that the debate about the quota will take up too much space in the reporting.
Why do you fear this?
Because the topic provokes controversy and is interesting for the media. However, I expect the party congress to discuss the issue objectively, vote it up and move on to the next point. Just like when deciding on the company year. In this question, too, two trains collide: some want it to be mandatory, like me, while others want it to be voluntary. We have to discuss that, even if it takes two hours. In the end, there has to be a decision that everyone stands behind.
If the women’s quota that Friedrich Merz supports doesn’t go through: would it then be damaged?
How come? No not at all. Friedrich Merz says himself that we have to become a fighting party again. If you make every dispute on the matter on which the chairman has his own opinion a question of power, then there will be no more chairman in the future.
Do you think that the Germans’ support for Ukraine policy will crumble in the autumn and winter?
When inflation rises, it is only natural to begin to wonder if sanctions and military support still make sense. I’m afraid that will happen. It is then all the more important that we politicians explain why it is crucial to continue to support Ukraine.
How stable do you assess the mood in the CDU?
The CDU is characterized by the fact that it stands by its convictions, especially on foreign policy issues. When it comes to peace and freedom, economic interests have no place. I am fortunate to belong to a generation that grew up in peace and freedom in this country and really enjoys it. What will happen if we stop supporting Ukraine? Will Putin then say: OK, then I’ll retire now too? Certainly not, on the contrary.
Do you also discuss this question with your party colleague Michael Kretschmer, who doubts the point of arms deliveries?
Yes, of course, and I personally don’t think it’s a bad thing at all that there is room for such a position in a people’s party. I even expect that you don’t moralize or ideologize on these issues, but rather listen to the opinion of others. That’s how I understand the People’s Party.
Frauke Niemeyer and Hubertus Volmer spoke to Carsten Linnemann
