Precht bei Maischberger: Scheitert die Ampel? Deutschland zwischen Klima-Angst, China-Kritik und dem Ende der politischen Mitte!
Oktober 2025
Richard David Precht bei Maischberger
Der bekannte Philosoph Richard David Precht ist zu Gast bei Maischberger im ZDF und liefert eine schonungslose Analyse der aktuellen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Lage in Deutschland. Wie steht es um die Ampelkoalition – zwischen internen Konflikten, Haushaltslöchern und dem Dilemma, Deutschland zukunftsfähig zu machen? Precht beleuchtet die Klimadebatte und die oft überhitzte „Klima-Angst“, die das Land spaltet. Er diskutiert die brisante Rolle Chinas als Wirtschaftsmacht und die Konsequenzen für die deutsche Industrie und die Demokratie. Zudem widmet er sich der Frage, warum die politische Mitte schwindet und Populismus wächst. Ein tiefgründiger und kritischer Blick auf die Herausforderungen, die unser Land im Herbst des politischen Wandels bewältigen muss. Pflichtprogramm für alle, die verstehen wollen, wohin die Reise geht.
Precht,
Richard David Precht,
Maischberger,
Sandra Maischberger,
ZDF,
Talkshow,
Philosoph,
Politik,
Ampelkoalition,
Ampel,
Deutschland,
Zukunft,
Klimakrise,
Klimadebatte,
Klima-Angst,
China,
China-Politik,
Wirtschaft,
Mitte,
politische Mitte,
Populismus,
Kritik,
Analyse,
Haushalt,
Krieg,
Ukraine,
Gesellschaft,
Demokratie,
Hashtags (27 Stück):
#Maischberger,
#Precht,
#RichardDavidPrecht,
#ZDF,
#Talkshow,
#Politik,
#Deutschland,
#Ampel,
#Ampelkoalition,
#Klimakrise,
#Klimapolitik,
#China,
#Geopolitik,
#Wirtschaft,
#Philosophie,
#Gesellschaft,
#Demokratie,
#Bundestag,
#Haushalt,
#Zukunft,
#Klimaschutz,
#Populismus,
#Meinung,
#Analyse,
#TVTipp,
#Mediathek,
#OKTOBER,
Oktober 2025
Richard David Precht bei Maischberger
Der bekannte Philosoph Richard David Precht ist zu Gast bei Maischberger im ZDF und liefert eine schonungslose Analyse der aktuellen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Lage in Deutschland. Wie steht es um die Ampelkoalition – zwischen internen Konflikten, Haushaltslöchern und dem Dilemma, Deutschland zukunftsfähig zu machen? Precht beleuchtet die Klimadebatte und die oft überhitzte „Klima-Angst“, die das Land spaltet. Er diskutiert die brisante Rolle Chinas als Wirtschaftsmacht und die Konsequenzen für die deutsche Industrie und die Demokratie. Zudem widmet er sich der Frage, warum die politische Mitte schwindet und Populismus wächst. Ein tiefgründiger und kritischer Blick auf die Herausforderungen, die unser Land im Herbst des politischen Wandels bewältigen muss. Pflichtprogramm für alle, die verstehen wollen, wohin die Reise geht.
Precht,
Richard David Precht,
Maischberger,
Sandra Maischberger,
ZDF,
Talkshow,
Philosoph,
Politik,
Ampelkoalition,
Ampel,
Deutschland,
Zukunft,
Klimakrise,
Klimadebatte,
Klima-Angst,
China,
China-Politik,
Wirtschaft,
Mitte,
politische Mitte,
Populismus,
Kritik,
Analyse,
Haushalt,
Krieg,
Ukraine,
Gesellschaft,
Demokratie,
Hashtags (27 Stück):
#Maischberger,
#Precht,
#RichardDavidPrecht,
#ZDF,
#Talkshow,
#Politik,
#Deutschland,
#Ampel,
#Ampelkoalition,
#Klimakrise,
#Klimapolitik,
#China,
#Geopolitik,
#Wirtschaft,
#Philosophie,
#Gesellschaft,
#Demokratie,
#Bundestag,
#Haushalt,
#Zukunft,
#Klimaschutz,
#Populismus,
#Meinung,
#Analyse,
#TVTipp,
#Mediathek,
#OKTOBER,
Kategorie
📚
LernenTranskript
00:00The Allensbach study you are citing is on page 1 of the book.
00:14This question has been asked for about 70 years.
00:17How would you answer that?
00:20I would say that one can of course freely express one's opinion in Germany.
00:23However, the social costs of expressing unpopular opinions have risen sharply.
00:27And that's why 44 percent say it's better to be cautious.
00:33Because that's the study result of 23, I think, while 40 say, no, everything is still okay.
00:39How has this value changed and why?
00:43Yes, finding the causes is not so easy.
00:46An attempt to come back and say what has changed in society,
00:49because the legal situation has only changed marginally.
00:52It has changed in some ways, but that's not really the main issue.
00:56But the really big issue is why the social costs of expressing opinions have risen so much.
01:02And I see that as a certain explosion of standards.
01:06This also includes statements that do not constitute criminal offenses.
01:09such as what was written against Mr. Schreiber.
01:12This contains insults, this contains defamation, this is a threat of physical violence.
01:17These are all criminal offenses.
01:18But there are also people who express themselves and with very strong, let's say,
01:23Opinions that deviate from the current mainstream must fear the social costs.
01:29What are social costs?
01:30So, job loss, as we've already mentioned, threat scenarios, so what do you mean by social costs?
01:36Yes, so if you, as a public figure, experience social ostracism,
01:38You might no longer be invited if you hold certain positions,
01:42It's possible that you might rub people the wrong way at work, depending on where that workplace is located.
01:47There are very, very sensitive jobs, especially in the cultural sector,
01:51where false statements are very, very severely punished.
01:54And the reason for all this, in my opinion, is the downside of what is actually a positive development.
02:00And that's what makes it so difficult.
02:01This positive development, which consists primarily of the fact that we have been seeing this since the mid-1960s, has been particularly positive.
02:07are an increasingly free society,
02:10which has gradually won the rights of more and more people
02:14and has continually expanded participation and respect.
02:20Which is very, very positive.
02:21My parents were among the fighters for this development, along with my adopted siblings.
02:26Recognition of all people, equality of women, and so on.
02:30Wonderful development.
02:31And in parallel, raising awareness and emotionalizing emotions.
02:36You are allowed to feel your emotions.
02:37You are allowed to talk about your feelings.
02:39Nobody could tell my grandfather that.
02:41He went down to the cellar to feel it.
02:43Now we have experienced this development.
02:44And it's actually really great.
02:47Individualization leading to the singularization of society.
02:50Everyone has claims against the other individual.
02:52Mindfulness towards the other individual.
02:55Demanding mindfulness.
02:56A high degree of attention to who you are, how you are, and how you want to present yourself.
03:02This is the societal development since the 1960s.
03:05This is a positive development.
03:06The downside is that the more sensitive and emotional people become, the more vulnerable they become.
03:12This means they feel attacked all the more easily.
03:14I compared it to a water lily pond.
03:16The Water Lily Dilemma.
03:18I really enjoyed that.
03:18Yes, so each of us is like a water lily, and the water lilies keep getting bigger.
03:23This means that our sensitivity – what we claim for ourselves, where we are susceptible to being offended, where we feel hurt – is constantly increasing.
03:31And the free water in between, the swimming space, is gradually compressed.
03:35And that is essentially public space.
03:36This is the space for opinions.
03:38When everyone is extremely sensitive, there's almost nothing left to say.
03:40That basically means everyone is allowed to say anything, freedom of speech is there, but it's something like, well, what is it then, self-censorship, when you're afraid of causing offense and then you'd rather not do it, and then you get surveys like this, or what is it?
03:55Exactly. So you know you have to be more careful than you had to be ten or twenty years ago about letting out any spontaneous judgments, opinions, or even very considered opinions.
04:09But if these are opinions that are currently so strongly influenced by a social emotional situation, as with Corona, as two years ago after the Hamas massacres, as after Putin's attack on Ukraine,
04:22In such a heated atmosphere, one must be very, very, very, very careful in public about how one positions oneself, so as not to be socially ostracized.
04:32I find it interesting that you differentiate between freedom of expression and tolerance of opinion. What is the difference?
04:38Yes, freedom of expression is essentially what the law regulates. And not much has changed in that regard, apart from a few minor details.
04:45But tolerance for different opinions has decreased. This means that the moralization of society, which Mr. Ressler mentioned earlier, is also a problem.
04:52It has progressed enormously. We actually have an almost infantile approach to morality in our society.
04:59We want the world to be good and fair, and for everyone else to think the same as me.
05:04And if they think differently, I experience that as a personal attack.
05:07And that is a very ominous development, because a liberal democracy cannot function in the long term like that.
05:13At the same time, there was of course also a development where people who expressed themselves in such a way that others felt racially insulted,
05:19that they felt, so we don't even need to talk about anti-Semitism here.
05:23But people like Thomas Gottschalk, who stopped saying that on "Wetten, dass...?"
05:29The reason is that I always said on television what I also said at home.
05:33These days, I speak differently at home than I do on television. And that's not exactly a great development.
05:37Then I'd rather say nothing at all.
05:39So there has been a learning process, where people have said, okay, we don't need to say the N-word anymore.
05:45If we know that this will hurt some people, what's wrong with that, actually?
05:50No, actually it's a good thing. And it's also a good thing to tell everyone who uses the N-word, listen,
05:55You do realize that this is an insult and will be perceived as such.
05:58And that can, for example, raise the question: isn't it the same whether a 20-year-old uses the N-word or a 70- or 80-year-old?
06:06Yes, I know plenty of older people who continue to use the N-word simply out of ignorance or habit.
06:10That was in her children's books.
06:11Exactly. And actually, even in mine.
06:15And the question is, to what extent do I sensationalize this?
06:19There's a difference between telling someone to stop doing that, and making a huge deal out of it.
06:24And we once had the case of a CSU politician who even said it, so to speak, in a talk show.
06:29About Roberto Blanco, I think.
06:30Yes, about Roberto Blanco, exactly.
06:32And the person who actually tried to make that clear as a direct quote, and then has it thrown back in their face for weeks or months.
06:41So, there's a difference between saying, which I think is absolutely right, don't use the N-word,
06:46to then discredit someone as the worst, the impossible, and a racist.
06:49That brings us back to the personal aspect.
06:51These two things are completely unrelated.
06:53That means we're working with mega-labels, and that's not good for you.
06:58I'm skipping to the end of the book. How do we get out of this?
07:01Resilience.
07:02And resilience is everyone's favorite word.
07:04Saying that will make you popular.
07:06And then everyone thinks, if everyone just starts with themselves and acquires a larger field,
07:10Then we'll get along well again.
07:11That's the word for Sunday.
07:13For me, it is much more important that this resilience exists in the responsible positions.
07:17At the level of publishing directors, exhibition organizers, and so on.
07:23Especially in the cultural sector, moralizing is very, very, very, very strong.
07:27Even more so than in politics.
07:29So that if someone has done something, these people should stand behind it and say,
07:33Come on, let's just let things slide.
07:34And that was the case before, too.
07:35And don't immediately start being afraid for yourself.
07:37So the standstill of fear is not triggered by every single individual,
07:42but above all it is the fear of those in positions of responsibility.
07:44And we'll jump ahead a bit further, because you're not the only one who has, so to speak, diagnosed this.
07:50But we had a visit from the US Vice President at the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of the year,
07:55J.D. Vance.
07:56He said the biggest threat he sees in relation to Europe is
07:59This isn't about China, this isn't about the USA, but actually about how we deal with freedom of expression.
08:03A quote from this event.
08:07He spoke about freedom of expression, about the firewall.
08:35He spoke about how we deal, so to speak, with those who think differently politically.
08:39And the outrage was so great also because one has the feeling that
08:42This is the same government that treats political dissidents in the same way it accuses us of treating them.
08:47What do you have here for me?
08:48That's correct.
08:49So I listened to the speech many times.
08:51Very often.
08:52I looked at each of these points very closely and examined what was true and what was not.
08:57I have to say, 80 percent of it is pure nonsense.
09:01There are one or two points in there where you could say he has a point, not in what was just cut out.
09:07Nor did I know what he said about the arrest or about anti-abortion activists and such.
09:11But overall, one naturally wonders, of all people, "He's coming up with this now."
09:15This is of course always unfavorable when someone who contributes to this in their country,
09:20to do exactly that, to narrow the scope of public opinion,
09:24Canceling people is essentially starting shitstorms.
09:27So, all these dangerous weapons that one would be better off not using in a democracy.
09:31And the others.
09:34Repression so severe that even Democrats no longer dare to say anything.
09:37and everyone has the fear at work that they might say the wrong thing, which will be held against them.
09:41The fact that he is now presenting himself as a great champion of freedom of expression is, of course, a disservice to this very serious issue.
09:51So, I've learned that this is also a tactic to simply not talk about what one does oneself.
09:57Or simply the opposite.
09:59So you do that, and then you distract from the fact that you're doing it yourself.
10:02And you were never a huge fan of the USA, if only for upbringing reasons.
10:10What did your parents hear about the United States of America?
10:12Yes, yes, well, I mean, the Vietnam War was very formative for my parents.
10:15And I have two adopted siblings from Vietnam.
10:19And it is perfectly clear that the image of the USA did not turn out particularly well.
10:24when you looked at the Vietnam War back then.
10:27And I mean, unimaginable even from today's perspective.
10:30I mean, they used biological weapons there, incendiary gas that melted the skin, the heads, the flesh.
10:36They used weapons of the most gruesome kind.
10:39And in Europe, including Germany, this issue was met with silence for a long time.
10:42Yes, even from the Brand government.
10:44That did happen to some extent.
10:45Yes, freedom is being defended there.
10:46And if it's for freedom, then it must be right, and so on.
10:49And that's something my parents influenced.
10:51That's why they were naturally very, very skeptical of the USA.
10:53And is it you today?
10:55Ah yes, one gets older.
10:57That means one stays...
10:58Yes, I know, you don't stay exactly the same as you were at ten or fourteen for your entire life.
11:04Of course, I have a long life behind me and have dealt extensively with the USA.
11:08But I am quite skeptical about the development of the United States.
11:11But this isn't actually a new phenomenon since Donald Trump.
11:15It's interesting that you say that about the Vietnamese children.
11:20Because there is a...
11:21I mean, the moment when, so to speak, the first baby from Vietnam arrives in your family was filmed.
11:27We found it in the archives and wanted to show it.
11:29The Precht family, whom we visited in Solingen, has three children of their own besides the Vietnamese one, the youngest of whom is still in diapers.
11:45We observed household chores and asked a few questions.
11:48So a baby is basically a baby.
11:54That's why I find it almost difficult to see this as a Vietnamese child, as a foreign child.
12:00But it's simply a baby.
12:05I find that fascinating.
12:08Her parents already had three children.
12:10One of them had just been born.
12:12And they adopted not only this child, but a second one from Vietnam.
12:15What were they like? What were they like? How would you describe them?
12:17So they were left-wing? Were they do-gooders?
12:21So, even though it's a swear word, what were they like?
12:24They were left-wing.
12:25And their enemy image was, in effect, all those resentments, the mustiness, and the stifling atmosphere that still existed from the Adenauer era.
12:35When my brother came in 1969, he was driving around in a pram with two babies in it.
12:40And one of them was very visible, very Asian in appearance, my brother Marcel.
12:44Then there were two people who always said, yes, I admire that, I couldn't do that.
12:47But of course, there were also many, many people who found it completely unimaginable, even negatively unimaginable.
12:52The then-responsible Interior Minister spoke of enormous damage that could result from the adoption of children from other cultural backgrounds to society.
13:00For society and one's own cultural sphere.
13:02And all I can say is what I said before. What positive steps have we taken since then?
13:08We just need to be honest enough to acknowledge that even a positive path can have unintended downsides, and we need to be honest about that too.
13:15How do your parents view the left-wing scene, the leftists, and the Greens today?
13:23Well, my parents are still alive, but they are very old.
13:27And I know that my mother was very happy at the time about the emergence of the Greens as a left-wing party.
13:32And at some point, both my parents were more than disappointed with the left.
13:38And I also believe the final step is that today, in the polls, the Green voters are the ones who are most in favor of rearmament and most in favor of military support for Ukraine, and furthest away from pacifist ideals.
13:51My parents would certainly perceive this, to put it cautiously, as a betrayal of leftist ideals.
13:56You recently said something interesting in the taz newspaper regarding your own view of the Greens.
14:01You said that, as far as climate protection is concerned, you no longer see any difference between Trump, Habeck and Merz.
14:08Well, there was one essential point, and that's what it referred to.
14:12The truly dangerous thing in the climate change debate is not the climate change deniers.
14:17Yes, one can live with a handful of oddballs.
14:19The truly dangerous ones are those who know for certain that man-made climate change is happening.
14:25but prioritize other topics far ahead and more or less remove these topics from the agenda or downplay them.
14:34And ultimately, of course, it is the pragmatists who hold power, regardless of whether they fundamentally acknowledge climate change.
14:41but not act as if he is not the greatest threat to humanity.
14:45Those who commit a greater betrayal than the handful of crackpots who believe that man-made climate change does not exist.
14:50And that's what you're accusing Habeck of?
14:52Yes.
14:53Yes.
14:53Have you recently given much thought to what it would be like to bear political responsibility yourself and have to make compromises?
14:58Often enough.
14:59Did you want to go into politics?
15:01No.
15:01Why not?
15:04First of all, I wouldn't know which party to join. It wouldn't be the Greens, not with the way they've sunk themselves lately.
15:08The Left?
15:09I don't feel that any single party reflects exactly what I think about society, or anything like that.
15:16That would be the first major problem.
15:18There are many parties currently running for mayor.
15:18The second problem is, I've seen in my own life how everything went into politics and how he started out as an idealist.
15:25Yes, jagged like a rock crystal and then rounded like a river pebble.
15:30And that was a development that I personally did not want to go through.
15:33Furthermore, I believe that sometimes one can have a stronger influence on politics from the perspective of a commentator than if one were an official oneself.
15:42But someone has to do it. And now let's get back to your book.
15:45Do you think it's harder or easier for politicians today to get their points of view across?
15:52Yes, that's almost impossible.
15:54They are still making enormous promises, and this horrifies me every time.
15:58Now comes the major political shift.
16:01Scholz and the Greens did that back then too, and so on.
16:05We have four years left.
16:07And what all do we need to rebuild because of climate change and such?
16:09Then almost none of that happened.
16:11Or Merz, who is now bringing about a very, very big change and a complete change of policy, a change of direction.
16:16And everyone knows that once you reach a certain age, almost nothing of it comes across in the end.
16:22But what are you supposed to do?
16:23Every new government turns out to be the worst we've ever had.
16:26And I already said, when Merz was elected, that it would only take a few more weeks.
16:31And you'll find him even worse than Olaf Scholz here, because disappointment is guaranteed.
16:35And indeed, the scope for political action is limited by the paralysis of fear that I am describing.
16:41Anyone who leans out of the window to get it in the picture.
16:45When asked what distinguishes an Italian Western from an American Western, the Italo-Western director Sergio Leone once said,
16:53When someone looks out of a window in John Ford's work, they have a view of a bright future.
16:58And if anyone looks out of my window, everyone knows they're going to be shot.
17:01Yes, and that's pretty much how it was with visions in politics in the past, and that's how it is with visions in politics today.
17:08One last look at what happens next.
17:10Social media is a field where you have to be convincing.
17:13Sometimes not at all with political content.
17:15Markus Söder, for example, always does that.
17:19I'm going to take a real bite right now.
17:20With food.
17:22But then we also see Annalena Baerbock in New York.
17:24We then see Foreign Minister Johann Wadelfuhl laying out tarot cards.
17:30And Heidi Reichenberg is dancing.
17:32This isn't political communication, but obviously it has to be done.
17:36Are you mild?
17:37You don't have to do that.
17:38I would never do that.
17:39But instead of promising people something, just dance?
17:42Yes, I know it will arrive somewhere in the short term.
17:45But I wouldn't do that as a politician.
17:47I find it undignified that people try to sell themselves in this way.
17:50as if you were a marketing studio.
17:52But do you really want to leave TikTok to the others who will simply be successful?
17:56I mean, social media also has formats where one can express oneself at length and in detail.
18:02You don't necessarily have to reduce it to the level of eating and dancing.
18:06Okay, let's see what sticks.
18:07Thank you for coming today, Richard David Reichenberg.
18:10Thank you.
18:10Thank you.
18:10Thank you.
18:10Thank you.
18:10Thank you.
18:10Thank you.
18:10Thank you.
18:10Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:11Thank you.
18:12Thank you.
18:12Thank you.
18:13Thank you.
18:14Thank you.
18:15Thank you.
18:15Thank you.
18:16Thank you.
18:16Thank you.
18:17Thank you.
18:18Thank you.
18:18Thank you.
18:19Thank you.
18:20Thank you.
Empfohlen
1:22
|
Als nächstes auf Sendung
29:31
28:08
29:17
0:29
0:13
6:03