Hatred of the Greens in the “climate laboratory”: Why are Habeck and Baerbock to blame for everything?

Of the past 42 years, the CDU has been in the Chancellery for 32 years. But in Germany, anger over high energy and living costs, tight budgets, crime and migration is mostly expressed by the party that has so far been unable to provide either chancellor or chancellor: the Greens. Where does the rejection come from? Where is it particularly strong? The Greens are not innocent of their image as supposedly wealthy moralizers, says a social scientist Silke Borgstedt in the ntv “climate laboratory”. Added to this is the perceived change from the uncomfortable eco-party to the hip lifestyle party. This leaves part of the population behind, as does the desire for new models of prosperity, explains the managing director of the Sinus Institute: It has a particularly threatening effect on people in traditional environments. Because the middle class feels increasingly “devalued” and is developing a new and dangerous unwillingness to compromise out of frustration: “Democracy is always when what I want happens,” warns Silke Borgstedt.

ntv.de: Why do so many people feel rejection of the Greens?

Silke Borgstedt: There have always been people who are closer or further away from a party. There have always been beer tent speeches in which people shouted and fired shots with a certain aversion towards other parties. But with the Greens it is actually a different dimension.

This is no longer just political rejection, but hatred?

In part. But it’s not a particularly large group, just a very loud one. And because of its volume, this “peak of hate” is transmitted to areas where fundamental aversions exist, but if so, then more in terms of content.

Like the nuclear power plant shutdown?

Yes. “I’m for nuclear power, that’s why I’m not voting for the Greens, but for another party.” This criticism of the content is emotionalized by the loud minority and a common enemy image is created.

That’s called Robert Habeck or Annalena Baerbock?

Exactly. But it doesn’t have to happen loudly. There are also groups that “quietly” reject the Greens because there has always been a certain cultural distance. Social milieus that are skeptical about them, even though it cannot be properly explained in terms of content: There is, for example, a traditional milieu that was socialized in the post-war period. The classic grandmas and grandpas who live very modestly, repair everything, rarely fly, don’t buy a new cell phone every year and have the lowest carbon footprint of all.

Extremely sustainable.

Yes. They live very ecologically, as many Greens suggest. It is precisely these people who are at most distant from the Greens and want nothing to do with “Ecos” because a certain image of this party has become entrenched in their minds.

Are the similarities deliberately ignored?

20 years ago it was for aesthetic reasons, for example because the Greens weren’t dressed so neatly. Meanwhile, sections in the middle of the population in particular have stronger aversions. This is largely due to topics such as transformation and change, which is celebrated not only by the Greens, but also by modern and progressive milieus: Finally something is happening! We have progress! A new government! At least that’s how it was two years ago…

You can choose which gender you live by and how you want to be addressed – changes like that?

Exactly. At the same time, this has also massively expanded the Greens’ voter potential. This actually used to be more of a client party for the “post-material milieu,” as we call it in the social sciences.

The eco party?

Yes. Now the Greens have gone far into the middle of society and have taken up topics such as partnership compatibility or e-mobility, which are associated with progress. “Eco” was a depressive aesthetic of renunciation, now green stands for a lifestyle in which there are no longer muesli bars but power bowls.

And this development has left part of the population behind or even excluded it?

Exactly, the supposedly “normal” people. The formerly bourgeois, partly nostalgic middle, which knows what is right and what is wrong and simply wants to get out of this pile of crises. But instead someone else comes along and tells them they need to change.

These are people who used to set the moral tone themselves and lived and conveyed classic German virtues? Modesty and hard work?

And material prosperity! In the middle of society it has always been the case that you get an education, learn a job, buy a car, ideally build a house and go on vacation. But now your own children are suddenly saying that cruises are not good and that their parents could eat a little less meat… What has been right and important up to now is being questioned. Many people feel affected by this. They perceive suggestions for the further development of society as devaluing their own lives. We see that very often.

That explains a certain rejection, but where does the hate come from?

About existential questions and the fear that the ecological restructuring of society will lead to short-term jobs, less money and more burdens. The nostalgic milieu, but increasingly also the younger, pragmatic middle, would in principle go along with the change, but ask themselves: “Why should we pay for all of this? Those ‘up there’ can afford it. Especially those who vote for the Greens, don’t have to change anything.”

There is a lot of fear that you will end up with less. Things were different in the 90s. Back then, people looked up and thought about how to achieve social advancement. Now it’s being kicked down to those who have to see how they’re getting along anyway. Because it is assumed that their lives are subsidized…

Is this an East German problem and the reason for the AfD’s particularly high poll numbers in the eastern federal states?

This milieu is strongly represented in individual eastern German federal states and within this milieu extreme manifestations can also be identified to a greater extent. This is more than frustration, but it is also not the case that entire parts of the center are right-wing extremists. You get the feeling that something is going in the wrong direction. When looking for someone to blame and a simple solution, it is a relief to have a common enemy. This toughness and lack of compromise also shows a different or changing understanding of democracy: democracy is no longer associated with discussions and the struggle for compromises, but rather with the idea: Democracy is always when what I want happens. This is also because the Greens sometimes – it sounds naive – act too honestly. They openly address topics such as loss or present new forms of prosperity. That seems threatening.

As with the Building Energy Act (GEG)? Robert Habeck says that we can’t waste any more time with the heat transition, but that we have to install heat pumps as quickly as possible. But all people hear is: Should I rip out my heater?

That wasn’t particularly clever in terms of communication and the aftereffects are impressive, but in this case it’s actually about the private: Why do I have to start?

Are the Greens complicit in their image through unfortunate statements?

To do our research, we go to people’s homes, talk to them for a long time and try to understand why they think what they do. The Greens’ appearance there is not always perceived as professional. But this honesty or naivety is not so much the problem. The rejection, especially in the last two years, is based on the claim: We want change, and at speed! But some environments require different speeds. It’s not that the center doesn’t want to change. She also wants to be modern and move forward, but at the moment people feel like they can’t keep up. The feeling of togetherness is missing. Many people have the impression that they are being laughed at or that someone is telling them what to do. There is no longer any collaboration where you can create something together.

Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann spoke to Silke Borgstedt. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better clarity. You can listen to the entire conversation in the “Klima-Labor” podcast.