Helmut Kohl is 80.
But what else is he?
Apparently, as far as he is concerned, this is not so easy.
Take the appraisal written by two representatives of the media,
who regard him from the wing perspective.
First the “ZEIT” of the “Leftist Hamburg Mafia” (as Kohl himself titled them).
And then the conservative “Oberbayerisches Volksblatt” with the words of Theo Waigel.
“The Chancellor would have remained only average without the re-unification.”
“He reaped what he had not sown.”
(ZEIT comment on the re-unification)
“He had not read Grass”.
“He had not read Böll”.
“He had not read Goethe.”
(Walter-Kempowski-Interview with Kohl for the ZEIT).
“He is not as experienced as Adenauer.
He is not as fatherly as Heuss.
He is not as economical as Erhard.
He is not as eloquent as Strauss.
He is not as silver-tongued as Schmidt.
He is not as enamoured of words as Barzel.
He is not as Hanseatic as Carstens.
And he is by no means as aristocratic as Weizsäcker”.
(Theo Waigel in his laudation of Kohl –
Helmut Kohl would have deserved bells ringing –
in the “Oberbayerischen Volksblatt”)
So both friend and foe describe Helmut Kohl
basically by what he did not do
and by what he was not.
Does that really do him justice?
I am trying to remember those 16 years of his rule and use the “Marcel Proust” method.
Marcel Proust was able to start the reminiscences
of his enormous work
“Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Zeit”
with a Madeleine (that is a French biscuit).
I used a Palatine pig’s stomach.
And it worked.
I remember that Kohl himself sought
the preservation of the lost time.
It was the successful years of economic miracle.
He wanted to hold onto them.
Dawning globalization, together with
the pressure of competition caused by it,
along with saturation and ageing
of the German society, were things he did not want to see.
At the time, I did not like it.
I still do not like it.
But it is very, very human.
That is perhaps his most outstanding characteristic.
And no not or but.
SIX
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...