The necessary and the possible

Ehere are politicians who vow to do everything in their power to achieve this or prevent that. Somewhat more presumptuous are those who claim what is “humanly possible” and thus admit that they are only human, but also emphasize that none of the other 7.5 billion could do it better than them.

Traffic light politicians, on the other hand, are content with doing everything necessary or how Markus Soder it would put it: the bare minimum – if at all. Economics Minister Habeck promised that he would do "everything that is necessary to fully guarantee security of supply". Finance Minister Lindner said: "We do what is necessary." And then, of course, Chancellor Scholz.

In the fight against Corona, he asserted: "We will do everything that is necessary." Regarding the Russian war of aggression, he said: "We will support Ukraine for as long as it is necessary."

At first listen, it all seems quite compelling (in an emergency you do what is necessary), and it almost seems modest - but it's not. You can already see that from the “everything” and the suggestion that “necessary”, “necessary” and “required” are crystal clear, almost measurable terms – but they are not.

Sarrazin was drawn to cold feelings

It starts with the question of whether, calculated in terms of self-propelled howitzers, "delivering what is necessary" is more or less than "delivering what is possible". Then: What is necessary for life? Opinions differ on that, too. The FDP, for example, confirms Montesquieu every day, who said: "A lot of people only consider what is superfluous to be necessary." On the other hand, the former social democrat knew Thilo Sarrazin almost 15 years ago: "If the energy costs are as high as the rents, people will consider whether they can't live reasonably with a thick sweater at a room temperature of 15 or 16 degrees." At that time, Sarrazin was accused of cold feelings, well it is government policy.

Source link