Der deutsche Traum - Episode 1: Der Gründer - Daniel Krauss, Flix SE

I never really had a German Dream. I feel European, and I just happened to be born in Germany. I don't have a Bavarian Dream either, even though I was born in Bavaria and it's part of Germany. My dream is characterized by Europe, and thus also Germany, is freedom. Freedom in the sense of freedom of movement, freedom of choice, simply in a context of positive, benevolent, future-oriented cooperation. That's it. I'm not a great philosopher. Live and let live sounds nice.

I believe the German Dream of the average German is very close to this topic of fear. German Angst is actually what Time magazine titled, I think. The German Dream is being able to shape your life with a certain independence, meaning being able to afford a home, start a family, and simply enjoy your life in peace. Germany has always been a haven of security, especially in the post-war order, and we are a very stable democracy. So you could live a very good life here. Now, due to various changes in the geopolitical context and macroeconomic difficulties, it's no longer as easy as it once was, as our parents in part demonstrated. 'Work, work, build a house,' as our neighbors in Baden-Württemberg would say, that's no longer the case. And I believe this narrative is also a bit backward-looking. The SPD says something like 'preserve the good old,' but that's not so easy, and that's why I think the SPD is completely wrong. But that is something very close to the dream. The problem is that no one knows exactly why it's not manifesting right now and how to get back there, and that gives too much room for fear. It gets projected onto refugees, onto technology, technology fear, onto everything possible. So, as I said, a good bourgeois, almost Biedermeier-style life is still, I believe, the great dream of many of our fellow citizens.

In my view, it leads to people wanting to preserve things, to hold on. It leads, somewhat symptomatically for the 16 Merkel years, to simply managing the status quo. The problem is that times have changed; it's faster, more complex, and the rest of the world isn't waiting for us. So, despite all the desire to get a good education, work hard, and then eventually afford a house, have a family, and when you retire, the kids are educated and you're done paying off your mortgage and can enjoy your old age on a good pension, that's no longer the case. People don't know exactly why, and that, I think, is the core of what we now need to contrast this mindset with an American narrative. The American Dream is known to everyone, and even if times are turbulent in the tech sector, it still drives people, creates external appeal, and makes millions of people believe in it and try to immigrate to the country.

I think the great privilege, and also part of what we are trying to preserve in Germany, is our welfare state, the social market economy, this great social security system. But it's partly outdated and no longer financially sustainable. That's not the problem itself. I'm not someone who goes into detail about how much citizen's income someone gets. I think the problem of all this, and what politics currently suggests in the debate, is that we can't save on consumptive spending. This suggests a 'full-nanny-state' mindset: I'm used to the father state wiping my backside, so to speak. That's not the case in the United States. It leads to many people falling through the cracks, but it also means you still have the opportunity for excellence. Excellence is promoted, demanded, appreciated, and it leads to people wanting it. If you've made it, you get it; you get fed. It's not like that here. This even leads to grotesque excesses. I know some migrants and refugees who say they want to come to Germany to shape their future, who are actually driven by something like the American Dream. You can't imagine how people who emigrated to the USA had to leave everything behind, just like refugees today. But they arrive here, and it's easier to live from hand to mouth on social welfare than to get a job, not because they don't want to, but because with all the bureaucracy, you eventually give up. And without a magic potion, nothing happens. Then they quickly convert and think Germany is nice too, but in a different way, in a backward-looking way.

I think it needs renewal. Renewal is the intentionally positive connotation of disruption. If you only change things piece by piece, it works, and Germany did that very successfully for a long time. But at some point, it's like the so-called innovator's dilemma for companies; it can't go on anymore, and you have to slam your fist on the table. That means disruption, or renewal. You have to break things. And for that, you need a mindset, above all, courage. Courage is not what, apparently, characterizes our people. Ukrainians have courage, and the people fighting their way through Latin America to reach the American border have courage. I rarely see it here.

Because there are two aspects. We were all very similar, good middle class, good bourgeoisie. There was always a working population, the precariat, and a few rich people, but there was a very large broad mass in the middle. The row house I grew up in, the garden gnome, all solid, nice. The Audi 80 or Audi 100 Avant we had at some point. That was it. And then we were all somehow equal. And everything was in order. Order is something Germans like very much. And if someone became very poor or very rich, that was disorderly. Then there was suddenly envy, gossip, depending. And that is the opposite of courage. Courage means I stand up, I start a movement, and in the worst case, I get slapped down, but benevolently, because it might not work, but you still get a high five, next try. It's not like that in Germany. Here, people point fingers, and then you're somehow special and become a topic of conversation. I don't think the average German wants that, that other people talk about them. That, I think, prevents courage. And that's why I think there isn't that much entrepreneurship compared to the United States, because you naturally take the risk of failing, and then the question is what happens. And if there's schadenfreude and such, that's a hindrance. I also think it goes hand in hand because people ask themselves, 'Okay, why are you doing this? Everything is great, you have fantastic health insurance, why would you pack your bags and go to the USA?' 'What's wrong with you?' You see? And that's something that's not so easy to change because it's deeply rooted in identity. You know, we've been reunited for over 30 years now, and yet this morning I read an interview with Bodo Ramelow where he said, I don't know if it's factually substantiated, that a large part of our citizens in the eastern German states are fed up. And then you notice, and then there are a few people in the West who say, 'Yes, but we invested billions there, they should be grateful.' Bullshit. It's irrelevant. The West has to make the effort, has to put themselves in their shoes, has to say, 'Okay, why are they fed up with us?' And we don't do that. It's been 30 years, it's the same people, and it's still a problem. That means if you want to create a momentum for the entire German people to suddenly change, it's very lengthy. And I think you can only shorten it with a healthy dose of pain, like an ice bath. This country needs an ice bath.

There was a European Dream. I think not enough people know it anymore. The European Dream was that we would never again beat each other's faces in on this continent. The European Dream was peace, freedom, which is a big aspect for me, for Germany, but especially for Europe. If you want to be pathetic: equality, fraternity, and so on. But it doesn't matter if someone is French, Spanish, Italian, or German. We have a common value construct and therefore want to emphasize our commonalities. And that led to achievements like being able to travel without borders. That is one of the greatest projects, like reunification, because we're doing the same thing there too, with transfer payments and such. There were also a couple of birth defects. You can discuss the German constitution, which I think is very good, or the American one, and then, 'Hey, they made it hundreds of years ago, show some respect.' I think it's very good. We just need the courage to adapt it and not debate forever. That's also the case with European foundations. Of course, unanimity doesn't always make sense. Of course, German federalism as currently structured makes no sense at all. You just have to have the courage to adapt it. And I think what's happened to the European Dream is that it's no longer a dream. A dream is future-oriented, something positive. Fear is backward-looking, preserving. I remember when I was young and went on vacation with my parents to Italy, we stood at the border and had funny papers and passports everywhere, which looks a bit shabby from today's perspective. Now you think, 'To Italy? Cool. To France? Awesome. I like the French, they are my brothers and sisters.' My family lives in Italy, and everyone else too. And I find the Poles a fascinating people. Yes, sometimes peoples have a somewhat stubborn government, but if you believe in the good, that can be solved too. And I believe the generation after us was born into this; for them, it's the status quo, self-evident. And self-evident is less of a dream because what is there left to dream? So, for the EU or Europe as a whole, not just the EU, a very clear wake-up call is probably needed to fill this dream with new, creative life. That's what's necessary, because it is per se always future-oriented. That's a meta-level, not so concrete with nation-state constraints. For example, I would look at this: people look at me and I say, 'Obviously, we should take the next step: United States of Europe.' Exactly. And then we say, 'What is the most spoken language in Europe? English. Boom, then it's the official language everywhere, and we still speak German, and the French write French.' People discuss and say, 'You want to take away our mother tongue!' There are people in Germany whose mothers don't speak any German at all. What kind of banana republic concept is that? We have to figure out how to ensure this continent, with all our countries, remains competitive, free, and peaceful. That certainly won't happen if 80 million people say, 'No, we only speak German,' and the French, 70 or 60 million, say, 'Everything has to be French.' You won't get anywhere. And that shocks me because it again shows a lack of courage, a look into the past. When a person or a group of people with the same identity feels belonging, at some point everything is reinforced internally and pushed away externally. That's how you create tribalism. That's why there were funny situations in the past where, even in national-conservative, hard-right circles, suddenly there were colleagues of Turkish descent, and you think, 'That can't be right.' But it was, because of identity appropriation. The identity inward was stronger than outward. It's often the case that immigrants who have become native here say, 'No, we can't let the others in.' This identity is the question: what is the European identity, and how can I make it stronger than a German, French, or Italian one? Identity is the obstacle. Dreams, I believe, can be united.

Such things have always come about through individuals who showed courage. There are currently too few. I have a wish, maybe my small, personal mini-dream, that someone like Macron, when he can no longer be president, says, 'Now I'll be the Commission chief, and I'll show you how to create momentum.' I would wish for that because you need more people like that, a person with a vision, an idea, who fights for something and, in the worst case, has the courage to simply say 'no' or to create disruption. Like Schröder, of course he became shady, but he saved our asses. We need more of that. There are too few. The second thing that I think is helpful is discourse, open debate. Politics has become bad at that, and the media have become even worse, in my opinion. Of course, I, as Daniel, think long-range weapons are right, but you can't just decide that; you have to discuss it. You have to say, 'Here's a proposal, I think it's good because...' and then others can say, 'I don't think it's so good because...' and then it gets discussed. They discuss every piece of nonsense on TV anyway, so it's legitimate. You have to discuss it; you can't just decide it. If you just decide it, it leads to reactionary forces, backroom deals, conspiracy theories. The second thing is the media. In my opinion, they have largely lost the role of the fourth pillar of democracy that was suggested to me as a young person. I don't know many media and journalists who really feel committed to this ethos, like the Hippocratic Oath for doctors. There's so much clickbait, colorful, shrill, and then some more. And if a politician says something contrary, sometimes they say stupid things, people are human, then they get beaten down so much that there's no tomorrow. The mob gets incited, and then eggs are thrown at their house. I'm exaggerating now, but I think, 'Okay, that's not journalism as I experienced it in my youth.' And of course, you have the problem with social media, which leads to many small, fragmented media and no more large leading media, and they are much harder to control, with fake news and so on. But that's dangerous because this balancing element is missing. I can't tell you how to fix it from my perspective, but it's something that has a reinforcing effect, this sensationalism.