Politics: On the same frequency

Ms. Broßart, Mr. Jordan, you’ve now been in the Bundestag for several months. What has surprised you the most?

Victoria Broßart: There’s quite a lot! I came from a regular engineering job: structured working hours, projects, clear processes. Politics was mostly a hobby for me. And then suddenly, the direct leap into high-level politics. That was quite an adjustment. But I think by now I’ve settled in well – the office is set up, and the processes are running smoothly.

Alexander Jordan: I felt very much the same as Victoria. I previously worked in the automotive industry, with a fast pace, large budgets, and everything very project-oriented. The work here is completely different. At the same time – and I really enjoy this – you have a lot of freedom as a member of parliament. No one tells you what to say. When it comes to cars, it’s more like: “You know about this – what’s your opinion?” I really appreciate that as a newcomer, you’re welcomed in this way and given responsible tasks right away.

Your professional background is quite unusual for the Bundestag. Most of your colleagues studied law, economics, or political science. Does that make a difference for you?

Broßart: Definitely, it’s actually very important for my self-understanding. I always say: I’m an engineer, not a politician. I’m an engineer doing politics. And I do think it helps me get better access to many topics – like in the Transport Committee, where we both sit, or in discussions with lobby groups or ministries. You can drill down differently, go into details more quickly.

Jordan: I can confirm that. I’d even go further: Even on topics we hadn’t dealt with before, our studies give us a solid toolbox. Engineering thinking means: recognize a problem, analyze it, find a solution. But you also have to learn that politics works differently – not everything that makes technical sense is politically feasible. Still, when we engineers talk among ourselves in parliament, you immediately notice that we speak the same language. We’re basically on the same frequency.

Broßart: And that also applies when – like now – the conversation takes place between government and opposition. I usually find these debates more interesting, stimulating, and productive than the flat-out bickering you sometimes see in political disputes.

But isn’t it a problem that there are so few engineers in politics?

Broßart: I would say: yes. There should be more of us! (laughs)

And why are there so few?

Broßart: Because being an engineer isn’t just a job, it’s a vocation. Most of us love what we do. And people who work like that prefer to solve problems rather than talk about them. That’s why politics can be intimidating for many. But at some point, I – just like Alexander – realized that some problems can only be solved politically. And then we do it on behalf of all the other colleagues – so they can remain engineers.

Jordan: Well said! And it’s true that some political debates here in the Bundestag are more like bickering. There are contributions you can definitely say don’t help anyone.

Which probably brings us to the AfD faction. Their engineer quota is at least 10.5 percent – twice as much as the CDU…

Jordan: Which ultimately just shows that it’s not only about a politician’s education or training. On paper, these are smart, educated people. But when you see the inhumane way they sometimes express themselves – not just on social media but openly in the plenary – you just can’t reconcile it. No idea where they went so wrong.

In your new role, you’ll certainly feel the pressure from lobbyists. After all, 6,190 active interest representatives are registered in the Bundestag’s official lobby register.

Jordan: I wouldn’t call it pressure. But of course, there are many meetings. Every week I have several appointments with associations or companies. They want to present their perspective, and I’m happy to listen – mostly everything related to transport and energy.

Your openness even got you into the Heute Show – when Fabian Köster caught up with you before Philip Morris’s summer party. What did you do there?

Broßart: (laughs) I’d like to know that too.

Jordan: Why shouldn’t I go there? Especially as a newcomer, I attended every meeting I could. I had great conversations that evening – not only with representatives of the tobacco industry but also with colleagues you often don’t get to meet in parliamentary work. In the end, it’s just networking.

In the fall, it was revealed that the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) had co-authored a position paper for the CDU. Ms. Broßart: Is that normal? Does the BUND also help write your papers?

Broßart: No, of course not. We certainly hold discussions with various organizations and explore whether there are shared interests. However, we would never let anyone write a text for us. That work is still done by us.

Jordan: Admittedly, whether it was a good idea to simply adopt individual text passages verbatim is another question. Fundamentally, I stand by the statements and think it would be wrong not to hear from an association representing over 600 automakers and suppliers in Germany.

Broßart: In my view, it should always be about finding a balance between interest groups. No single group should simply be able to dictate what it wants and have it adopted. We are the representatives of the people, elected to achieve the best for the citizens – not the best for the automotive industry.

Have you, Ms. Broßart, already had contact with lobbyists from the VDA? And you, Mr. Jordan, with lobbyists from the BUND?

Broßart: Naturally! I even attended the IAA in Munich with representatives of the VDA, even if people might not expect to see us Greens there. But I don’t believe in moving in bubbles. I want to know what the industry thinks – and they should know how I argue. Only then can bridges be built.

Jordan: And I also meet with the BUND. They are currently suing against a highway project in my constituency. I want to hear their arguments firsthand.

Mr. Jordan, as an engineer, you know the future is electric. And you represent Wolfsburg, the heart of the German automotive industry. What does that mean to you?

Jordan: I see no contradiction. However, we have realized that the transformation must remain realistic. Many jobs still depend on combustion engines. There are also sensible transitional technologies, such as plug-in hybrids and range extenders. Moreover, there are markets we shouldn’t leave to others. It makes little sense industrially, climatically, or socially if Mercedes develops and manufactures its combustion engines in China. That helps no one! That’s why I already advocated in the summer for postponing the phase-out of combustion engines.

Broßart: I fundamentally disagree. We are in this difficult situation precisely because we hesitated too long: sales of combustion engines are declining, electric cars are not yet competitive, and the German industry has missed the boat. If we start postponing phase-out targets now, we will make things worse. Clear limits force action. Without clear directives, nothing happens. If we stick to combustion engines now, we will permanently lose our lead.

Jordan: But you do realize that automakers are not making profits with electric vehicles. Maybe two or three models generate a positive EBIT contribution; everything else is currently carried by combustion engines. That’s why unions have also shifted and support flexibility in the phase-out, otherwise they risk losing members.

Broßart: But what can politics do if automakers produce electric cars that no one wants? Perhaps they should build electric cars that people actually want. And if you emphasize jobs so much, let me remind you how it went with photovoltaics and wind power. Their expansion was massively slowed under the previous government, costing 120,000 jobs in Germany. Nobody cared, even though these were the right future markets. And with the automotive industry, I must say: we won’t save jobs by clinging to a dying technology. We can only save them if we recognize what the times demand.

More important than whether production of combustion vehicles can continue a few more years is what the federal government is now aiming for with its “Hightech Agenda.” The question remains: why didn’t the previous coalition tackle this?

Broßart: I think we just didn’t give it a fancy name in the previous coalition. And of course, we didn’t have the funds now available through the special budget. With our modest means, however, we did try to move Germany forward – for example, by attracting chip manufacturing. It didn’t work everywhere as hoped, but we were actively working, not just announcing.

By the time this interview was published, the “Autumn of Reforms” announced by Chancellor Merz had already given way to a new season. Mr. Jordan, can we agree that reforms must continue to secure Germany as an industrial location?

Jordan: Reforms must continue, and they will continue. At the moment, we face disadvantages as a location, for example in energy costs. But we don’t need to be the cheapest; we need to be the most innovative. Quantum technologies, energy production, biotechnology – these are fields that will propel us forward. If we increase productivity, we can offset cost disadvantages.

Broßart: In principle, I completely agree with you: Germany needs reforms. But by “reforms,” we Greens mean something different than the current coalition. Renaming citizen’s allowance or reducing electricity taxes only for large corporations won’t save our industrial base. We need real, sustainable reforms that strengthen both the middle class and society as a whole.

Ms. Broßart, would you endorse Franz Müntefering’s famous saying “Opposition is crap”?

Broßart: Not entirely. Of course, it would be nicer to actively shape policy in government. But opposition is also a time to prepare ideas. Nothing we are developing now disappears – we put it in the drawer and bring it out again when we govern. And honestly, this coalition makes it easy for us to criticize. The speeches almost write themselves.

Jordan: Naturally, I see it differently. And as a member of the governing party, I am happy to do everything I can to ensure that the Greens remain in opposition beyond this legislative period (laughs). But despite all content differences, I want to emphasize: it’s fun to work with this opposition so constructively and fairly.

Broßart: I can confirm that: personally, things work really well and very respectfully between us. And if Alexander wants to send me his next legislative proposals in advance, I’m happy, as a good “service opposition,” to provide a few improvement suggestions.