>[…]the center-right Christian Democrat came to be viewed as an indispensable crisis manager and defender of Western values in turbulent times.
For some definitions of “western values”. I mean, I’ll give her traditionand the existence of a multiparty liberal democracy, but she’s been seriously lacking on the part of solidarity and inclusiveness, which at least seem like they ought to be in that group?
>Others in Europe and beyond “want more of an active Germany to play a role in the world — that may not have been the case before she was in office, necessarily.”
Which may in part be because under merkel we’ve been 100% passive in everything.
>She was steadfast in pursuing multilateral solutions to the world’s problems, […]
Citation needed. THe issues with Poland and Hungary should give everyone a good idea of how little she appeared to actually care for multilateralism.
>Still, she was viewed as a crucial leader in the unwieldy 27-nation EU, famed for her stamina in coaxing agreements in marathon negotiating sessions.
Agreements which oftentimes failed to adequately adress the problem(s) at hand, since they considered the participants positions over the facts of the matter.
I mean, honestly, Merkel is a one-of-a-kind politician who, in my opinion, will probably always be one of Germanys greatest chancellors from a policy-agnostic position. But she’s not some mythical figure, and she’s not perfect, either personally or in that role. And we shouldn’t fail to acknowledge that. I mean, if people are failing to put her work in adequate context like this now, before she’s even formally out of office, what’s goin to happen in 10, 20. 50 years?
Point being, she’s a great politician and all, but this article is one hell of a wank.
2 comments
>[…]the center-right Christian Democrat came to be viewed as an indispensable crisis manager and defender of Western values in turbulent times.
For some definitions of “western values”. I mean, I’ll give her traditionand the existence of a multiparty liberal democracy, but she’s been seriously lacking on the part of solidarity and inclusiveness, which at least seem like they ought to be in that group?
>Others in Europe and beyond “want more of an active Germany to play a role in the world — that may not have been the case before she was in office, necessarily.”
Which may in part be because under merkel we’ve been 100% passive in everything.
>She was steadfast in pursuing multilateral solutions to the world’s problems, […]
Citation needed. THe issues with Poland and Hungary should give everyone a good idea of how little she appeared to actually care for multilateralism.
>Still, she was viewed as a crucial leader in the unwieldy 27-nation EU, famed for her stamina in coaxing agreements in marathon negotiating sessions.
Agreements which oftentimes failed to adequately adress the problem(s) at hand, since they considered the participants positions over the facts of the matter.
I mean, honestly, Merkel is a one-of-a-kind politician who, in my opinion, will probably always be one of Germanys greatest chancellors from a policy-agnostic position. But she’s not some mythical figure, and she’s not perfect, either personally or in that role. And we shouldn’t fail to acknowledge that. I mean, if people are failing to put her work in adequate context like this now, before she’s even formally out of office, what’s goin to happen in 10, 20. 50 years?
Point being, she’s a great politician and all, but this article is one hell of a wank.
Like Helmut Kohl, we got used to her…