The problem with politics is that it tends to chew up and spit out people with a modicum of honesty, integrity and a moral compass. They either give up, or become corrupted to the point that they can no longer fulfill the purpose that they went into politics for.
This is generally true, but there are also many notable exceptions.
Here in Germany I could name:
Gregor Gysi
Of the left Party
Always does what he thinks is best for the people
Many political opponents tried really hard to stick dirt on him and failed
Nico Semsrott
Arguably not that long in politics
Took a stance against Martin Sonnenborn (who is the very popular leader of a satirical party) in an affair and is now without a party (Yes this makes it likely he will not be in the next parliament)
As far as I have seen votes always in favor of the people
Patrick Breyer
-Pirate Party
fights for digital freedom and privacy since decades
Always follows the pirate paradigm: transparency. He publishes all his meeting with lobbyists.
Helps to educate the public and discovered quite a few hidden legislative attempts to undermine privacy
I have great respect for Gysi, and always did since I first listened to a campaign speech from him in the mid-90s. He’s a politician who has stuck to his principles and prevailed through adversities where many other people would have just given up. But, even if you disregard his flaws, blind spots around Russia, and the poor handling of the internal crises which have now led to a split of his party, he has hardly ever been in a position where he could truly make a change in politics. His party may have been part of the government in some German states, but he himself never has been. And this may sound cynical, but it’s relatively easy to be a principled politician when there’s not much at stake. It’s when you actually have some power and influence, that the wheat separates from the chaff - when you actually have to handle all kinds of pressure from all sides and see what your principles are worth to you.
This is not a defense of any other politicians - I wish there were way more who didn’t give up their principles at the first sign of pressure. I’m just saying that Gysi has rarely been in a position where he had to do that.
I am unfamiliar with the other two, but I would say similar concerns may apply there.
Gysi disappointed me massively when he defended Russia in the Nawalny poisoning and speculated about who might ‘actually profit’ without the slightest shred of evidence.
In honesty I didn’t hear all his statements back then. Now from a quick search I can only find his Twitter:
„Natürlich kann es so gewesen sein, wie es @derspiegel annimmt. Es kann aber auch anders gewesen sein. Ich habe als Rechtsanwalt häufig erlebt, dass alles gegen A sprach, es war dann aber doch B.“
Which just says there should be more investigation before accusations are made. Asking for evidence.
If you have a link to an interview or talk where he does as you said I would be interested to hear how he phrased it.
I want to point out one thing I have seen far to often in recent times: If a person or group of the left make a wrong statement others which previously followed them are quick to change their view and declare them as persona non grata. On the other hand we have the far right which spills out lies after lies and their followers are so used to it that even disproving them in multiple points does not touch their loyality in any way. I think we should focus more on welcoming people who try to do good thing. If they make a wrong step we should not shun them but try to show them why they did wrong. At least hey try to better themselves and you/we have a good chance to convince them of the better way.
See for example Snowden. He made the mistake to believe Russia would never invade Ukraine. An easy mistake if you have to live inside Russia propaganda machine. Upon realizing his error he was so struck by it, because he uses his social media reach to better the world and now trough a mistake he abused it for spreading propaganda, that he apologized and stopped tweeting for many months.
im MDR erklärte der ehemalige Fraktionschef und inzwischen außenpolitische Sprecher der Bundestagsfraktion, Gregor Gysi, zum Giftanschlag auf Nawalny:
“Es kann ja auch sein, dass es ein Gegner der Erdgasleitung nach Deutschland war. Oder ein beauftragter Gegner, der wusste: Wenn man einen solchen Mord inszeniert, der dann der Regierung in die Schuhe geschoben wird, führt das zur Verschlechterung der Beziehungen.”
Auf einer Wahlkampf-Veranstaltung seiner Partei am gestrigen Donnerstag in Bochum sagte Gysi wörtlich:
„Der Putin muss doch bescheuert sein, wenn er sowas macht. Er weiß doch, dass das die Beziehungen zum Westen noch mehr verschlechtert.“
I understand being cautious and not pre-judging before all the facts are known but what Gysi said back then went beyond that to actively dismissing the idea that it might have been Russia after all.
Gysi would have a valid point, if you assumed that Putin is a rationally thinking leader who is interested in a good relationship with the West. But that is not the case. Putin is clearly out to provoke and challenge the West and NATO, though to what end, I can only speculate. I also don’t think Putin is in any way rational.
The problem with the modern Left especially in Germany is that they have a huge blind spot when it comes to Russia (and, really, anyone else who they consider to have been part of the historical struggle against imperialism, colonialism and fascism, no matter if they have since turned into tyrants or dictators). It is a huge problem, but they can’t seem to liberate themselves from that.
The problem with politics is that it tends to chew up and spit out people with a modicum of honesty, integrity and a moral compass. They either give up, or become corrupted to the point that they can no longer fulfill the purpose that they went into politics for.
This is generally true, but there are also many notable exceptions. Here in Germany I could name:
I have great respect for Gysi, and always did since I first listened to a campaign speech from him in the mid-90s. He’s a politician who has stuck to his principles and prevailed through adversities where many other people would have just given up. But, even if you disregard his flaws, blind spots around Russia, and the poor handling of the internal crises which have now led to a split of his party, he has hardly ever been in a position where he could truly make a change in politics. His party may have been part of the government in some German states, but he himself never has been. And this may sound cynical, but it’s relatively easy to be a principled politician when there’s not much at stake. It’s when you actually have some power and influence, that the wheat separates from the chaff - when you actually have to handle all kinds of pressure from all sides and see what your principles are worth to you.
This is not a defense of any other politicians - I wish there were way more who didn’t give up their principles at the first sign of pressure. I’m just saying that Gysi has rarely been in a position where he had to do that.
I am unfamiliar with the other two, but I would say similar concerns may apply there.
Gysi disappointed me massively when he defended Russia in the Nawalny poisoning and speculated about who might ‘actually profit’ without the slightest shred of evidence.
In honesty I didn’t hear all his statements back then. Now from a quick search I can only find his Twitter:
Which just says there should be more investigation before accusations are made. Asking for evidence. If you have a link to an interview or talk where he does as you said I would be interested to hear how he phrased it.
I want to point out one thing I have seen far to often in recent times: If a person or group of the left make a wrong statement others which previously followed them are quick to change their view and declare them as persona non grata. On the other hand we have the far right which spills out lies after lies and their followers are so used to it that even disproving them in multiple points does not touch their loyality in any way. I think we should focus more on welcoming people who try to do good thing. If they make a wrong step we should not shun them but try to show them why they did wrong. At least hey try to better themselves and you/we have a good chance to convince them of the better way.
See for example Snowden. He made the mistake to believe Russia would never invade Ukraine. An easy mistake if you have to live inside Russia propaganda machine. Upon realizing his error he was so struck by it, because he uses his social media reach to better the world and now trough a mistake he abused it for spreading propaganda, that he apologized and stopped tweeting for many months.
https://politik.watson.de/deutschland/meinung/135709990-warum-der-fall-nawalny-zeigt-dass-die-linke-nicht-regierungsfaehig-ist
https://www.ruhrbarone.de/gregor-gysi-verdaechtigt-nord-stream2-gegner-des-nawalny-giftanschlags/189721/
I understand being cautious and not pre-judging before all the facts are known but what Gysi said back then went beyond that to actively dismissing the idea that it might have been Russia after all.
Gysi would have a valid point, if you assumed that Putin is a rationally thinking leader who is interested in a good relationship with the West. But that is not the case. Putin is clearly out to provoke and challenge the West and NATO, though to what end, I can only speculate. I also don’t think Putin is in any way rational.
The problem with the modern Left especially in Germany is that they have a huge blind spot when it comes to Russia (and, really, anyone else who they consider to have been part of the historical struggle against imperialism, colonialism and fascism, no matter if they have since turned into tyrants or dictators). It is a huge problem, but they can’t seem to liberate themselves from that.