On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Seth Ackerman wrote:
> > It is a background analysis of Lafontaine's political defeat and the
> > "Schroederization" of the SPD, which is not at all a new development.
> >
> Hinrich, could you briefly summarize this article's argument? What
> do you think is behind Lafontaine's demise?
The article seems to dismisses Lafontaine's political victories over the first 100 days as epiphenomenal; the author never mentions them. He thinks that Lafontaine was largely right in what he was trying to do, but argues that he got no serious support from the left of the party or the unions. He gives the impression that Lafontaine threw in the towel out of frustration. He argues that the leadership of the SPD, the unions and the Greens all think like Schroeder, and have for a quite while, so Lafontaine was destined to lose -- when and how it happened was just a matter of accident.
The author seems to be arguing that Lafontaine's appeal among the membership was more than cancelled out by his complete isolation among the party leadership, and that he never managed to change that. He never details a particular battle that Lafontaine lost for lack of support, nor does he account for the impression both within and without Germany that his power was steadily rising from the election to the time he jumped ship. But I think the author interprets it all as posturing and rallying cries -- the sound of Lafontaine heroically swimming upstream and calling for others to join him. But no one did and he just said fuck it. The author does imply that he might have done things differently and tried to use his power base in the party to rally the left wing and change the balance of power of the leadership, but that he didn't because he was "afraid to split the party." But frankly I don't understand why he would be in that situation. Perhaps the author is saying the Lafontaine was simply more a grandstander than an activist at this point. Although that still leaves open the question of why -- party organizing had been his forte up until this time.
I think we might have to accept Johannes Schneider's opinion that the only satisfying explanation for Lafontaine's actions will end up being a biographical one and that it wasn't a function of the situation.
Michael __________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com