Bärbel Bas and the SPD’s Contempt for Voters

Germany’s Social Democrats have become so estranged from voters that their top politicians believe they can insult them at will, without accountability.

An example of this was provided by Bärbel Bas, Germany’s Minister of Labour and vice-chairman of the ruling Social Democrats (SPD), who gave a keynote speech at an event called “First Day of Action for Cohesion in Diversity” (Erster Aktionstag Zusammenhalt in Vielfalt) held on May 21.

Bas’ topic was migration, which she argued mattered not only for economic reasons but also as a source of cultural enrichment. If that might already have raised eyebrows—at a time when many feel that the assertion of common values and the demand for integration should define the debate—it was the next part of her speech that truly polarised: 

“We also intend to take a stand for colourfulness and push back against this uniform grey—or, indeed, what I would even go so far as to call ‘brown’,” she said.

Her speech rightly caused a stir—albeit sadly mainly on social media and among some of the more conservative outlets, such as Die Welt, Cicero, Focus, and the pro-populist Nius. The mainstream media remained largely silent.

He could not recall any other politician ever having insulted their own demos (“Volk“) in such a way, said journalist Gunnar Schupelius on Welt TV—referring to voters as either boring and dull (“grey”) or outright fascistic (“brown”).

Journalist Ulrich Reitz of Focus pointed out that Bas was echoing views that once belonged to the extreme fringe-anarchist Left—a Left that wore buttons proclaiming, “Foreigners, don’t leave us alone with the Germans!” or “Never again Germany.” This movement made a virtue of turning against the citizens of one’s own nation while demonstrating stubborn openness to every outsider. The same arrogance was described by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, one of Germany’s most gifted post-war authors. In a 1994 essay on migration, Enzensberger wrote that universalist rhetoric was nowhere more prized than in Germany and that the defence of immigrants was undertaken with a moralising air leaving nothing to be desired in terms of self-righteousness.

It is telling that this rhetoric—once associated with the far-left fringe—has now reached the upper echelons of what was once one of Germany’s most significant parties: a party that represented millions of largely working-class people in the post-war era. Nothing illustrates the party’s fall more plainly than this—its descent into increasing irrelevance. 

Criticism has focused not only on Bas’ speech but also on the silence within her party and the government at large. No one of any standing within the SPD was willing to criticise her. Other government ministers, and the chancellor himself, remained stumm. One commentator described the SPD’s reaction as “embarrassed silence.”

But what was the embarrassment about? If it was about the speech, then criticising it would surely have been the sensible and appropriate response. 

One explanation is that Bas was merely giving voice to a far broader disdain for large sections of the German electorate—a disdain that many in the party quietly share. Far from being an outlier, her remarks were yet another expression of the SPD’s utter estrangement from mainstream society. And they confirmed that it is through the issue of immigration that this estrangement is most acutely felt.

Her speech will, of course, only deepen voters’ anger and revulsion towards politicians like Bas, who have made clear, again and again, that they care very little about what ordinary people think.

Just a few weeks earlier, in early May, she stirred controversy by asserting that there was no such thing as “immigration into the social welfare system” in Germany. This claim was so transparently false that even members within her own party—those defending constituencies in embattled communities suffering under mass migration and rising poverty—dared to contradict her. She was, at the very least, deeply unhappy about the remark, said the mayor of Gelsenkirchen (SPD), who, only months earlier, had narrowly defeated the AfD candidate in a runoff (the AfD having secured nearly 30% of the vote in this former SPD stronghold).

The irony is that, just a few years ago, Bas was regarded as one of her party’s last remaining hopes. Unlike most SPD politicians, she comes from a humble, working-class background. Over many years, this woman—who had worked her way up through adult education and joined the SPD at an early age—managed to win her constituency in the former western industrial city of Duisburg outright, in what was once a traditional SPD heartland. (Though her appeal was perhaps never quite as strong as suggested. One local commentator described her as a career politician entirely devoid of ideas of her own.) 

Indeed, even here, voters have increasingly turned their backs on the party, seeking a new political home and an outlet for their concerns and anger. Despite Bas’ prominence, the AfD secured over 17% in the 2025 federal elections in the area (a gain of over 8% on the previous election). Rather than serving as a beacon of hope, Bas has become a herald of her party’s further decline.

For many on the Right, Bas’ speech will likely confirm their suspicion that the German government is pursuing the deliberate replacement of the German population (Umvolkung). But though mass migration has certainly transformed society, and though the SPD has long tended to regard itself as the natural party of choice for migrant voters, the truth is probably more complex—and closer to what Enzensberger recognised back in 1994: that a disoriented Left still appeared to believe that, if people were sufficiently pressured, their recalcitrant nature would eventually yield to the ‘correct’ consciousness—despite the colossal failure socialism had already suffered as a result of precisely this belief.

In the age of populism, this kind of bullying has taken on increasingly overt forms. For an inept political elite, where one stands on race and immigration has become one of the most important lines of demarcation. Unable to solve the pressing problems facing society—the housing shortage, high energy prices, rising unemployment—government representatives seek to demonstrate virtue and relevance by at least fighting the ‘far right.’ This includes their claim to be improving society through migration. The firewall erected to maintain the status quo has further discouraged any criticism of Bas: to criticise her is to risk appearing to side with the ‘other’— that is, the populist—camp.

Predictably, Bas has cast herself as a victim of the far right. “They see me as a personification of the enemy,” she said. Lamenting that life was not always easy, she promised not to “give up”: “Democrats! We mustn’t leave the field to the populists!” she declared in one interview. Fortunately, in our democracy, it is not she who decides who takes the field—but the voters. The very people she appears to hold in such contempt.