
The far-right in Germany wants to soften its image, not its policies
It ran on an anti-elite, anti-immigrant platform that included promises of mass deportations.
It also vowed to reignite the nation's industrial economy, powered by German coal and Russian natural gas.
The party finished second, winning more than one-fifth of the vote.
But the AfD found itself shut out of government, with no other party in Parliament willing to work with it.
Unable to cement its place in the Bundestag, the AfD decided that it needed to expand its appeal at the ballot box and in circles of power in Berlin.
Enter the new approach, which takes as its starting point the idea that German voters are fundamentally conservative — an assertion that centre-left parties dispute.
It is based largely on a surface read of February's election, when more than half of the voters either backed the AfD or the centre-right sister parties of Merz, the Christian Democrats and Christian Social Union.
Merz's voters broadly agree with AfD's view that Germany needs to strengthen the economy and reduce migration, said Beatrix von Storch, a senior AfD Member of Parliament and an architect of the new strategy. Opinion polling shows that Germans are worried about migration and security above all other issues.
The AfD, she said, will try to appeal to centre-right voters through those issues.
It will also try to provoke Germany's major liberal parties to move to the extreme left on social issues like abortion and transgender rights, she said, by raising the profile of those matters and of Germany's growing far-left party.
'There is a cultural war in the Western world and we will win it,' she said.
She said she hoped for an echo of last year's American presidential election.
'Moderate Republicans voted for Donald Trump, even though they don't approve of everything he says or does,' von Storch said.
'But the divide between moderate Republicans and the progressive Democrats is so deep that these reservations no longer mattered.'
There are many reasons why the AfD's effort could fail.
Merz's voters disagree with the AfD's stances on several issues, surveys suggest, most notably Germany's backing of Ukraine in its war against Russia.
And Germans tend to be consensus builders.
While its political extremes are growing, many voters still baulk at supporting any party seen as too far on one end or the other.
'You could say that the political centre is a kind of ideal in Germany, which is why I believe that, despite the potential for polarisation, there is no great desire for division among the German population,' said Johannes Hillje, a political scientist who has studied the new AfD strategy.
Some voters have also been turned off by the AfD's sharp rhetoric, particularly on immigration.
German intelligence has formally declared the AfD to be extremist over what the Government called an unconstitutional campaign to treat migrants differently from other German residents. The extremism designation could someday lead to the party being banned from German politics.
The force of many voters' distaste for the AfD helped prompt the other part of its strategy, the effort to soften its image without retreating on policy.
In May, AfD drafted penalties for members who had acted uncivilly in parliament, including fines of up to €5000 ($9760) and a three-month ban from giving speeches in the chamber. Earlier, it dissolved the Junge Alternative, the party's notoriously radical youth wing.
The AfD is now polling around 25% nationally, but it has lost ground to the centre-right since Merz took office in May.
His party gained support after loosening government borrowing limits, cutting some taxes and tightening border controls.
The Chancellor has rallied Germans around increased military spending, as long-standing American security guarantees for Europe have faltered.
Until recently, he had avoided the sort of coalition bickering that brought down former Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Government last year.
To rattle Merz's coalition, the AfD needed a controversy — one that combined hot-button social issues and hot-tempered political infighting.
This month, Merz's Government provided both.
A progressive law professor named Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf had been nominated for a seat on the nation's constitutional court by Merz's centre-left coalition partner, the Social Democrats. But Merz's party was baulking at supporting her.
The far-right had helped provoke the dispute.
The AfD and social conservatives had been attacking Brosius-Gersdorf, claiming without evidence that she supported legalised abortion to the ninth month of pregnancy.
Such a stance would have been far outside the German mainstream, were it true.
Abortion is illegal in Germany, but there are no penalties for the procedure through to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Brosius-Gersdorf had worked on a commission to change the law to decriminalise those early-term abortions, but she never publicly supported late-term abortion.
The AfD, which opposes abortion, cares little about that distinction.
When Merz took questions in Parliament this month, von Storch asked whether he could in good conscience vote to seat Brosius-Gersdorf.
After verbally attacking von Storch, Merz said yes.
Soon, an edited version of the exchange raced across social media.
Outrage built among conservatives, who fumed that Merz had effectively endorsed legalised abortion. Some Catholic bishops warned against confirming the nominee.
Merz's governing coalition had to postpone the vote, fearing Brosius-Gersdorf had insufficient support.
The nomination remains unresolved, though Merz has refocused his attention in recent days onto foreign policy.
Government aides say the best way for Merz to thwart the AfD is to stay out of culture wars and stick to solving problems that rank high among voters' concerns.
That includes restarting economic growth, reducing migration and restoring German leadership on the global stage. And doing so while projecting unity inside the government.
Some AfD leaders agree that policy wins would be Merz's best weapon against them.
Von Storch said AfD voters could flock to Merz if he effectively adopted the party's platform on immigration, including blocking new migrants from crossing the German border and deporting millions of asylum-seekers from Syria and elsewhere.
Merz has tightened border controls and stepped-up deportations, but there is no indication he would support anything close to the full AfD migration agenda.
Even as she stressed the importance of culture wars to divide the Merz coalition, von Storch said that for the AfD to grow in popularity, it must sell Germans on its plans for their wallets.
'Voters want a government that can lead the economy out of crisis, secure prosperity and ensure sound public finances,' she said.
'The AfD will gain massive acceptance and support if we aggressively stake out these areas.'
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Jim Tankersley and Christopher F. Schuetze
Photograph by: Lena Mucha
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
16 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Kamala Harris steps back from California governor bid amid a ‘moment of crisis'
Former US Vice-President Kamala Harris has ruled out running for Governor of California in a statement that offered little explanation for her decision but warned that the nation was in 'a moment of crisis'. The Democrat – defeated last year by Donald Trump in a tumultuous presidential election – had


NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Britain and France talk of recognising a Palestinian state. What would it mean?
That assault killed about 1200 people and led to the abduction of about 250 others to Gaza. The announcements raise questions about what the recognition of a Palestinian state would mean and what it can actually do. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the Trump Turnberry golf club in Turnberry, Scotland, on Tuesday. Photo / Tierney L. Cross, the New York Times What is a state? The criteria for statehood were laid out in an international treaty in 1933. They include four elements: a permanent population; defined territorial boundaries; a government; and an ability to conduct international affairs. Recognition is an official acknowledgement that a would-be state broadly meets those conditions. It can occur even if an element is in dispute, including territorial boundaries. Like all legal questions, 'interpretation matters', said Zinaida Miller, a professor of law and international affairs at Northeastern University in the United States. The criteria for recognising a Palestinian state have been met at a basic level, many experts on international law say. A permanent population and land exist. The borders, while disputed, are broadly understood to be in Israeli-occupied territories, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which was seized in 1967 in a war with a coalition of Arab states; as well as East Jerusalem, which Israel has effectively annexed. The Palestinian Authority is a government body that administers part of the West Bank and represents Palestinians. Its creation was authorised by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which represents Palestinians internationally. While there are limits to what the Palestinian Authority can do, given the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Hamas' control of Gaza, foreign recognition of a Palestinian state would mean the establishment of direct diplomatic contact between the authority and the recognising nation. Recognition would also send diplomatic and political messages. It would acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determination and reject the positions and actions of the Israeli Government that undermine that right, Miller said. 'A basis for added pressure.' A major consequence of recognising Palestinian statehood is that it provides a basis for 'a complete revision of bilateral relations with Israel', said Ardi Imseis, an associate professor at Queen's University Faculty of Law in Ontario and a former United Nations official. A country that recognises Palestine has to review agreements with Israel to make sure they do not violate its obligations to the Palestinian state. This would include political and territorial integrity, as well as economic, cultural, social and civil relations, he said. For example, if an aspect of trade aids or assists Israel in violation of the rights of a Palestinian state, then the recognising nation would have to cease that exchange. 'Practically speaking, recognition would provide a basis for added pressure to be brought to bear by civil society and lawmakers in the recognising state' to change policies and align them with other requirements, Imseis said. A recognising nation would not have to stop all trade with Israel, said Paul Reichler, a lawyer who represents sovereign states and has argued for the state of Palestine at the International Court of Justice. But if, for example, a country that recognises a state of Palestine imports agricultural products from farms belonging to settlers in occupied territories, those agreements would be aiding and abetting the commission of a wrongful act, he said. International law experts note that an advisory ruling from the International Court of Justice last year concluded, among other things, that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories violated a prohibition on territorial conquest. A UN majority for recognition already exists. Most countries in the United Nations — 147 out of 193 — already recognise a Palestinian state. Britain and France would be joining them, and their position has extra heft because they are permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the power to veto any substantive council resolution, including on the admission of new member states. The two countries would be bolstering the stance taken by most other nations and sending a political message, but their shift would also have a practical effect. They would join China and Russia in recognising a Palestinian state and leave the US as the sole permanent member of the Security Council with veto power that is holding out. The state of Palestine currently has observer status at the UN, and that will not change if the US maintains its opposition to full membership. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo / Eric Lee, the New York Times What is the goal of recognition? It is part of a political, diplomatic, and legal push to reach a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict despite resistance from Israel's current government. 'There are two peoples living between the river and the sea, not one, and they are entitled to separate states in which each of these peoples enjoys the full panoply of civil and human rights,' Reichler said. 'The only solution is two states, and it so happens that is what international law requires and is reflected in UN resolutions and in determinations of the ICJ,' he said. Although the declarations of Palestinian statehood may appear symbolic, 'small steps' like recognition 'make a contribution' to the goal of establishing two states, he said. Some nations, like Norway, once held off recognising a Palestinian state in the belief that recognition would someday emerge from a negotiated peace process. With such a process seemingly currently out of reach and outrage over Israeli policies growing, some countries have put recognition first in the hope that it would lead to a peace process. Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that the establishment of a Palestinian state would endanger Israel's security, and he has rejected the notion, particularly since the war in Gaza began. His governing coalition includes far-right ministers who are settlers and staunchly opposed to a Palestinian state, and he risks their abandoning the bloc if he indicates a willingness to consider it. In a statement yesterday, Netanyahu said Britain's announcement 'rewards Hamas' monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims'. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Ephrat Livni Photographs by: Saher Alghorra, Tierney L. Cross, Eric Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES


NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trump hits India with 25% tariff and ‘penalty' over Russia ties
US President Donald Trump said imports to the US from India will face 25% tariffs, while also announcing an unspecified 'penalty' over New Delhi's purchases of Russian weapons and energy. The measures will kick in on Friday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, adding to a host of other