INTERVIEW - Vince Ebert: "I don't know what's wrong with us Germans either – we've lost some control over politics."

His new book, "Wot Se Fack Deutschland?" (Does Germany Matter?), has just been published. It tells the story of a country that has fallen behind economically, is unable to get its migration problems under control, and is drowning in bureaucracy. When asked why he deals with these sad topics, Vince Ebert replies: "At its core, humor is actually always a catastrophe."

Mr. Ebert, you're a trained physicist and cabaret artist. Is there a connection?

I believe that, both in science and in the field of humor, humility toward everyday phenomena isn't a bad thing. Even if an artist is a bit more egomaniacal than a scientist.

Your book "Wot Se Fack, Deutschland?" (What's the Fack, Germany?) begins a bit like cabaret, but then becomes surprisingly serious. Why is that?

That's also my strategy in the shows. You have to engage people so that they're involved not just intellectually, but also emotionally. The second part deals with topics that are very important to me, such as the question of how we, through our own fault, have driven the cart into the mud in so many areas. That hurts me; it's also a personal blow, because this country is close to my heart.

What has happened that Germany has become so economically, politically, and socially deteriorated? You explicitly contradict an article in the Economist last year that blamed Angela Merkel alone for the misery.

That Ms. Merkel is to blame for everything is only half the truth. I always found it too easy to pick on individuals. The question is, what structures allow such politicians to rise to the top?

Then go ahead and shoot.

In recent decades, there has been far too high a demand on the ability of politics to solve problems. In Germany and the EU, in contrast to Switzerland with its direct democracy, this influence now has an incredibly large influence, often supported by academics. Surveys on major issues such as migration policy or energy policy show that in some cases, 70 to 80 percent of the population have completely different ideas than what politicians have been pursuing for years.

Isn't it a German characteristic to delegate responsibility, and wouldn't Angela Merkel then be a typically German product?

In fact, for decades, we have all too happily ceded all decision-making powers to politicians. It's a typically German urge to delegate responsibility when in doubt, to avoid standing up for one's opinion, and to tolerate dissent. This is very pronounced, starting with parents' evenings and ending with a vote in the Bundestag on nuclear phase-out or the Building Energy Act.

You note a large number of "unworldly ideologues, adaptable followers, or cowardly cowards" in top politics. Do you have an example?

At the end of 2022, when six nuclear power plants were still running and people were considering keeping them running to cushion the high energy prices caused by the war in Ukraine, ten or twelve politicians wrote to me personally about my book "Rainbow Not Blackout." They explicitly agreed with my opinion that we had to keep these plants running to ensure our energy supply remains secure and affordable. And then two weeks later, they voted against it. You look through this list and think, there's no way we can do that! He just told me that shutting them down is utter nonsense.

What is the reason for such maneuvers?

It's not just that politicians are ideologically blinded. There's also the pressure to form coalitions, there's peer pressure, there are those party soldiers who say, if I vote against my party, I'll be pushed to the very bottom of the list of MPs in the next election and won't be able to serve in my constituency.

Her book is also a wake-up call to the liberal middle class.

This milieu has been keeping its head down for decades. And when the sensible people withdraw from the debates, they leave the ship to the fools. Instead of acting independently, liberal citizens have happily delegated everything to politics for decades. They now rule the roost. And we have partially lost control over it.

After taking office, American Vice President Vance read the riot act to the Germans and criticized their increasing intolerance of dissenting opinions. The then-led coalition government reacted with extreme outrage. How deep is the self-righteousness of Germany's top politicians?

They feel very secure in their situation and, of course, will be damned if they publicly admit that Vance has hit the mark. Because in their world, what they're doing works. But the population recognizes this, too. That's why we speak of a party dictatorship or party democracy: A few political power holders, together with a few dominant media outlets, pursue policies against the majority. This creates a sense of powerlessness – and a completely discouraged mood.

Everyone attacked the traffic light government. Now, for a few months, a grand coalition of the CDU and SPD has been in power. Is it better now? Are we seeing any signs of change?

You can see that nothing is changing. Merz makes the occasional move that makes you say: Ah yes, okay, someone is finally addressing a problem. And two days later he takes two steps back. We simply don't have a form of government like in Argentina, where Javier Milei, as president, has significantly more decision-making powers to implement truly major changes. In Germany, a major thesis is put forward, and two days later it's retracted. If you read Merz's first book from 20 years ago, you'll see he's an economically liberal guy. He understands exactly what's at stake. But he's apparently decided to continue down this path with a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of administration, without fundamental changes in energy policy and, actually, in migration policy too. The major issues aren't being addressed.

The CDU's leftward shift is further strengthening the AfD. What do you think about the constant calls for a ban on this party?

I consider this a dishonest discussion because it acts as if the AfD emerged out of nowhere. Ultimately, it's a symptom, and I consider it profoundly illiberal to smear people who vote for the AfD because they no longer feel understood by the established parties as Nazis or right-wing radicals. These voters, who now make up 26 percent, are dismissed as inherently immoral. I consider this a dangerous development.

What happens when someone from the AfD laughs at your jokes and applauds you?

Something has changed in cabaret and the humor industry. When I started on stage, it was important to write lyrics that would make people laugh. And today you have to write lyrics that make the right people laugh. And if the wrong people laugh, then you're cast in a dubious light. But I don't play along with that game; I don't subject my shows to any ideological checks. I don't call it cancel culture either, because this culture of intimidation starts much earlier: They try to label people with a right-wing populist label in the hope that they'll then back off and behave the way they want.

Humans are social beings. What effect do intimidation and exclusion have?

This wears people down because they feel a constant fear and are afraid to speak out. Many take refuge in their private lives. I find it terrible because it creates a Biedermeier era. Many say, "I can't stand all this nonsense anymore," but I don't even dare say anything at my company anymore because the diversity officer immediately shows up at my door. This is utter poison for a culture of open debate, for a free democracy. When attempts are made to suppress any form of humor and satire that could be directed against anyone, this also affects the dividing line between a free and an unfree society.

With Dieter Nuhr, one has recently had the feeling that his contributions resemble increasingly sobering commentaries on everyday politics. Doesn't that get boring when cabaret artists take over the role of the lack of conservative political reporting?

It's actually true that in recent years, given the zeitgeist, I've been thinking more and more about what I do on stage – with books, it can be a bit more serious. Am I doing a new program? And if so, which one? Because I don't want to lose my sense of humor and give people a nice evening when they buy a ticket. I don't want to drag them down.

Have we forgotten how to let others be as they are?

I do believe that 30 or 40 years ago, people could have heated arguments and then drink a beer despite differing opinions. And then it was kind of fun again. Nowadays, even the smallest thing is politically charged. If I use a plastic straw, does that make me a bad person? We've lost what's called tolerance for ambiguity. This is largely due to social media platforms: immediately categorizing and pigeonholing people for every single action. That's a great curse of our times.

There's a theory that the woke movement, which has established itself with such profound impact on universities, is in decline. What's your opinion?

The starting point for the incredibly politicized universities was Critical Race Theory, the foundation of a political movement that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s led by a few people at Harvard and Berkeley. This laid the foundation for sociopolitical movements such as Gender Studies and Postcolonial Studies, which are now also taught at many German-speaking universities. From the very beginning, the representatives of these pseudo-scientific disciplines were not interested in the truth; rather, they fundamentally wanted to change society. They act as if they were science. Many currents in the humanities do not ask themselves whether the claims on which they have built their chairs are verifiable. If a chair holder does not care about falsifiability, then they do not belong at the university. Nevertheless, this injustice is now generally accepted without question.

Does this mean that this culture war is lost for serious science?

I'm not a total fan of Trump. But he's currently trying to depoliticize universities by cutting funding. In doing so, he's also shutting down a few faculties that actually conduct real science. He's going through it with a chainsaw. But in German-speaking countries, that's not possible at this level of quality, and that's why these dubious degree programs and these political movements that emerge from the university sector will remain with us for a while longer.

They talk about a step back to pre-Enlightenment times.

It's important to realize that evidence-based thinking, humanism, humanity, freedom of speech, a culture of debate, technological progress, scientific progress—a diverse array of hard and soft factors—are among the Enlightenment values. Upon critical examination, one can see that in many areas of Western culture, particularly in German-speaking countries, but also in England, many achievements—such as freedom of opinion and freedom of speech—are being rolled back.

You're calling on politicians to start dealing with scientific facts sensibly again and to refrain from activism. What are you thinking?

In energy policy, for example, scientific findings are simply swept under the carpet. They claim that wind and solar power can keep an entire industrial nation running. These are completely crude claims. Like this unspeakable gender debate, which culminates in the assertion that someone who feels like a woman is also a woman. I can only quote Nobel Prize winner Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, who says: "You cannot change your gender because your sex is defined by your germ cells, by your chromosomes."

The 1980s had fewer problems with this topic. David Bowie and Boy George played with transvestism and were pop culture icons. Why is this relaxed attitude gone?

Because it's being made into a biological fact. That's how things got completely out of hand. Back then, it was an exciting new time. Parents shook their heads, they might have looked at them a little, they might have been a little amused, but they tolerated it. When I tell my 24-year-old nephew today how freely and liberally we embraced these different movements back then, he can't believe it. But that was just the beginning. The gay and lesbian representatives of that generation are most annoyed by the LGBTQ movement and its trans and fetish culture because it counteracts the struggle they were waging to be accepted as a matter of course. They didn't want to be different and have people kneel before them; they wanted to live a normal life.

The pop culture of the 1980s shaped the Boomers, whom you sing the praises of. What's special about this generation?

I believe the era in which we grew up brought out the best in people. I'm a classic working-class child, and back then, it was revolutionary that a working-class child could go to high school and university. This promise of achievement existed, and it brought out the best in the Boomers and Generation X. There was modest prosperity, but still room for improvement. That's why the Boomers were so productive and carefree in many ways. Long-term studies show that they were actually the happiest generation in the last 100 years.

Boomers are seen as representatives of capitalism and are a favorite enemy of left-wing critics. Should those who have more than others have a guilty conscience?

There's a major study by the World Bank that concludes that in a capitalist society where there are more rich and super-rich people, poverty automatically decreases. The wealth of the super-rich therefore indirectly helps the poor. Bill Gates, for example, became a billionaire, but with his computer systems and his software, small entrepreneurs and self-employed people were also able to organize themselves much more efficiently and earn more money. In contrast, redistribution is always, to some extent, a waste of money. You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer; that's economically disproven.

Yet Germans cling to this redistribution theory? Why is it a recurring theme?

I don't know what's wrong with us Germans. At least we've recognized that the great wealth in Germany was created by the middle class. These were people who suddenly turned their small metalworking shop into a global market leader for concrete pumps or something like that. It's always been part of the German understanding of entrepreneurship to treat workers and staff well and provide for them. And yet, this idea that the entrepreneur, the capitalist, is the bad guy, is still ingrained in people's minds.

Is it social envy?

We're equality fanatics, which also has a bit to do with envy. What even children learn about economics: the state as a benefactor is grotesquely overemphasized. And entrepreneurial achievement is dismissed as if it were undeserved wealth. As if someone in the office were just making a little invention while the poor, exploited workers generate the wealth on the assembly line. These are theses that go back to Marx. I'm always horrified by how deeply this is rooted in the academic elite. Capitalism doesn't reward the particularly intelligent, but rather those who manage to produce something that lots of people are into. And that is, of course, an affront to—I'll be really mean and say—to some philosophers and sociologists. When they see that they're not actually earning any money with their job, while Dieter Bohlen is making millions with "Cheri Cheri Lady," it's an intellectual insult.