What struck me from this week’s readings were the parallels between Nazism and AfD ideology. The language employed by the parties is strikingly similar. Both considered the concept of “remigration”/plans for mass deportation; both have a dangerously nationalistic approach to policy, evident in the AfD’s wish to protect the Leitkultur (leading culture); and both parties have succeeded democratically (that is, voted in) by way of scapegoating vulnerable populations (Jews or migrants mainly). The secret meeting described in the Correctiv investigation proves the hypotheses about this ideological symmetry true. The AfD convention, perhaps by mere coincidence, took place only 8 kilometres away from the site of the Wannsee Conference, the meeting where the Nazis devised the Final Solution. And the AfD’s “masterplan” for migrants echoes the Nazis’ “solution” to “the Jewish Question.” I am left to wonder how neo-Nazism survived the decades-long, state-championed campaign to instill the Holocaust in the conscience of every German, and thereby root out the bigotry that fueled it. Has memory culture failed? Or is this backlash to it? Do supporters of AfD not see the connection between anti-migrant xenophobia and anti-semitism? Or is this kind of moral doublethink simply an unavoidable habit of the human conscience?
There is also, of course, the parallel with MAGA. The AfD’s “Vision 2026” is reminiscent of the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025.” And the populist support for the AfD, born out of discontent with the cost of living, mirrors Trump’s appeal to working class Americans. This has led me to be curious about the relationship between German and American political leadership. How does Merz feel about Trump? And how does the AfD feel about him?
The Correctiv piece is a great example of what investigative journalism can do at its best: catalyze a movement. I think of the more famous investigative pieces– Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” which helped bring about federal food safety laws, The Boston Globe’s report on the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal, which engendered accountability for the victims, and Jodi Kantor and Meghan Twohey’s story on Harvey Weinstein, which essentially launched #MeToo. The Correctiv’s story is perhaps less flashy than those – it’s about the exchange of ideas at a secret conference – but it made a splash nonetheless. I’m curious if there’s some commonality between these pieces, ones which have the ability to transform public outrage into action, or whether this kind of impact is simply a mix of good reporting and luck. Regardless, it is gratifying to know that journalism has this power, to illuminate wrongdoing and rouse backlash forceful enough to culminate in accountability.
