The Chancellor: The Remarkable Odyssey of Angela Merkel

“To achieve her goal of service, Merkel recognized early that she would need power, which she never saw as a dirty word. As she explained it: ‘Power per se is nothing bad. It is necessary. Power is ‘to make’—to do something. If I want to do something, I need the right tools; that is, the support of a group…The opposite of power is powerlessness. What’s the use of a good idea if I can’t execute it?’ To hear a politician, man or woman, express such an explicit perspective on power—and her need for it—is, to say the least, unusual.”

Merkel’s pragmatic and unapologetic view of power illustrates her strategic mindset, as she recognizes power as an essential tool for achieving her goals rather than something inherently corrupt. By framing power as a means to enact ideas and effect change, she challenges the conventional negative connotations of political ambition, especially the often-negative view of female-wielded power within patriarchal contexts—an important aspect of Angela Merkel and Feminism in the book.

“Merkel never publicly criticized her father’s politics. ‘My father tried to shape a church that met the needs of the people in the East,’ she said, likening his beliefs to those of liberation theologians in Latin America. Her public loyalty did not mean Angela agreed with him in private, however […] Years later, the pastor would say that his daughter was lost to him early on, commenting somewhat bitterly, ‘She always does what she wants.’”

Merkel’s diplomatic approach to handling disagreements with her father— i.e., choosing to maintain public loyalty while potentially differing in private—serves as an early example of The Nature of Merkel’s Nonconfrontational Style. Merkel also pursued her own path despite her father’s disapproval, which speaks to her action-oriented feminism.

“Following her brush with the all-seeing state, Merkel escaped into the safer province of science. ‘I chose physics because I wanted to understand Einstein’s theory of relativity and because even East Germany wasn’t capable of suspending basic arithmetic and the rules of nature,’ she said later.”

Merkel’s choice of physics as a refuge from the oppressive East German regime further highlights her strategic thinking and desire for intellectual freedom within the confines of a controlled society. By turning to science, she tried to pursue a field that would be less vulnerable to ideological manipulation. This decision also shows Merkel’s capacity to adapt and The Nature of Merkel’s Nonconfrontational Style—she simply looks for a field where she can grow instead of pursuing a path that could lead to direct confrontation with the regime.

“Angela’s first glimpse of West Berlin was a shock. When she did get around to visiting the Kurfurstendamm, the glittering shops and sleek, new apartment buildings—without a trace of war damage—dazzled the young woman. Equally disorienting was the speed with which events around her were spinning. A state enforced by hundreds of thousands of uniformed and plainclothes agents had collapsed like a sandcastle overnight. Angela, who had long dreamed of travelling to the West, suddenly saw unexpected and still vague possibilities shimmering before her. Given her upbringing, however, she was also cautious.”

Merkel’s initial encounter with West Berlin’s modernity was both captivating and overwhelming, illustrating the stark contrast between East and West Germany. The unforeseen collapse of the East German state created a whirlwind of change, presenting her with unprecedented opportunities that were once mere dreams. Despite the allure of these new prospects, her cautious nature, shaped by her controlled and restrictive upbringing, tempered her excitement.

“Euphoria is not a sustainable emotion; reality could not match four decades of dreams about freedom and the West. The habits of obedience, distrust, austerity, and loss of personal initiative were not easily shed […] A generation of Germans had been brainwashed into thinking they were part of the first country of ‘peasants and workers’ on German ground. Suddenly they were told they were no different from the people inhabiting that other Germany.”

This quote emphasizes the disillusionment experienced by East Germans as the euphoria of newfound freedom gave way to the realities of transitioning to a reunified Germany. Decades of ingrained habits proved difficult to abandon, revealing deep-seated psychological and societal scars. The process of reintegration between East and West continues to the present day, with many East Germans feeling betrayed and left behind in the competitive market that they were not prepared for.

“Authenticity was more important to her than stroking needy egos. She wasn’t much good at faking emotions, nor interested in learning how […] it was during those sometimes rocky early years that Merkel mastered steely composure. On a trip to Israel in the spring of 1991, she was all but ignored by her hosts, who assumed she was a ministerial assistant. Some in the media reported on her tears of frustration. ‘I have to be tougher,’ she acknowledged to Herlinde Koelbl at the time.”

Merkel’s prioritization of authenticity demonstrates her commitment to genuine leadership. Her early experiences, such as being mistaken for an assistant during a 1991 trip to Israel, illustrate the challenges she faced, which in turn reinforced her resolve to develop a composed and resilient demeanor. Nevertheless, the pressure Merkel felt to not show emotions in public has created a barrier between Merkel and a public that she, at times, had a hard time connecting with.

“Humor is Merkel’s way to defuse moments of high tension. On a flight to inspect German troops deployed in Afghanistan in December 2010, the government Airbus’s electronic warning system—intended to confuse a potential attack—set off flares on the aircraft’s tail as it approached the war zone. As the pilot took evasive action, the plane juddered, smoke from its defensive missiles blowing through the open gun hatches. When all clear was announced, the chancellor turned to her military escort and asked coolly, ‘So, what other entertainment do you have planned for me?’”

Merkel’s use of humor to defuse tension illustrates her ability to maintain composure and reassure those around her in high-stress situations. Her reaction during a turbulent flight alleviated the immediate anxiety and demonstrated her leadership qualities by transforming a moment of fear into one of levity and control.

“Merkel deftly turned her Eastern bloc experiences into a policy advantage, helping Bush see things from her point of view. During conversations about the need to sanction Iran to halt its nuclear weapons build-up, Merkel noted that after the United States imposed widespread sanctions on the Soviet Union as punishment for its invasion of Afghanistan, the price of oranges in her hometown spiked. ‘We felt this was unfair,’ she explained.”

This passage illustrates The Influence of Merkel’s East German Background, with Merkel leveraging her personal experiences to effectively influence policy discussions with President Bush and other leaders, demonstrating her strategic use of personal anecdotes to shape international diplomacy. Her ability to translate complex geopolitical issues into relatable stories facilitated understanding and garnered admiration and respect from the US president, exemplifying her diplomatic strength.

“Merkel’s approach to authoritarian regimes, whether Russian or Chinese, has been pragmatic. She scorns bombastic public shaming of dictators as counterproductive […] Her approach with rivals combines patience and persistence to pursue even a sliver of common ground. Threading the needle between her values, political calculations, and Germany’s longer-term interests was sometimes excruciatingly difficult—if not impossible.”

Marton here highlights Merkel’s pragmatic stance and The Nature of Merkel’s Nonconfrontational Style toward authoritarian regimes, as she consistently favored subtle diplomacy over overt antagonism. While this approach served Merkel well on many occasions, Marton will also claim that there were sometimes limitations to this approach when dealing with authoritarian leaders.

“As to why such a well-suited and devoted couple chose not to have children, Merkel has said, ‘I cannot imagine this in combination with being politically active.’ At age thirty-six, years before she had remarried, Merkel explained her belief that ‘a marriage would not change my life. But the way I see it, having a child would require me to give up politics. At the moment, this just isn’t an issue for me. And maybe it never will be.’ And it never was. By the time she and Sauer married, she was well into her forties.”

This quote invokes Angela Merkel and Feminism, spotlighting the unique scrutiny she faced as a woman on the public stage. While she strategically chose to separate her private life from her political persona, Merkel had, nonetheless, to answer constant inquiries into her personal choices, such as why she has not had a child. Merkel’s genuine answer that, for her, concomitant political activity and childrearing would have been impossible, is an honest admission of how demanding her political career has been and how much of her life she has dedicated to it.

“Merkel is an almost aggressively dull speaker. Her relationship to words is one of wariness: the fewer the better; it’s results that matter. Thus, she sometimes fails to capture a distracted world’s attention, however urgent her message. Such was the case when she addressed the UN General Assembly in September 2007 to call out Iran’s nuclear weapons program. ‘Nobody should have the slightest doubt as to the danger of this program,’ she cautioned, even as the Iranian ambassador sat within her range of vision […] Such a blunt warning delivered by a more forceful speaker might have captured the world’s attention; from Merkel, it was barely a blip on the screen.”

Merkel’s understated speaking style often diminishes the impact of her critical messages on the global stage. Her cautious and minimalist approach to language, prioritizing outcomes over rhetoric, can result in her urgent warnings being overlooked or underappreciated. While Merkel is passionate about certain issues, she often relies on an outdated communication style, thus failing to capture the importance of the issue at hand.

“Merkel seemed to downplay the fact that for every bad loan there is both a borrower and a lender, and that some responsibility should be borne by the banks—the institutions that are supposed to assess risk and act wisely but instead had enabled the gross excess of spending on infrastructure and projects well beyond their capacity to finance in the afflicted countries. Rather than punish the enablers, Merkel seemed to many to be punishing ordinary people for the wrongs of governments and the international financial systems. This view of austerity as punishment may not have been far off the mark. Tellingly, the German word for debt is the same as for guilt: Schuld.”

As a conservative politician and an advocate of austerity measures, Merkel has failed to empathize with those who were the most affected by the financial crisis, namely the people who were already financially vulnerable. Merkel thus faced criticism for austerity measures that disproportionately penalized ordinary citizens instead of addressing the systemic failures of financial institutions. The linguistic connection in German between “debt” and “guilt” underscores the punitive nature of Merkel’s policies, suggesting a moral dimension to the fiscal austerity imposed on indebted countries.

“The most dangerous by-product of this period, however, wasn’t the blow to Merkel’s image. It was the birth of the first successful post—World War II German far-right political party, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which was founded in opposition to the EU’s bailout of Greece. The rise of modern populism in Germany and elsewhere can be traced back to those first bank failures in 2008. But the significance of this new movement wouldn’t reach the chancellor’s notice until 2016; other crises would shield it from view until then.”

The emergence of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as Germany’s first successful far-right party since World War II was a significant and unintended consequence of the EU’s bailout of Greece. Merkel’s delayed recognition of the AfD’s significance points to the complex and often unforeseen political ramifications of economic policy decisions. It also highlights Merkel’s weakness in foreseeing the implications of her conservative political decisions.

“‘We are hopeful,’ said the weary chancellor, as she announced the cease-fire to waiting media. Though she had no illusions regarding how long it would be honored—if at all—she had Putin’s signature on a document with which to try to hold him to account. Lives could be saved. Ducking into her waiting black sedan, the chancellor headed to the airport and a few hours of well-deserved sleep at home in Berlin.”

This passage speaks to The Nature of Merkel’s Nonconfrontational Style. Despite her realistic skepticism about the durability of the cease-fire agreement, securing Putin’s signature was a strategic victory, providing a tangible means to hold him accountable. This approach points to Merkel’s effort to “play by the book,” following a law that can be used at a later date. However, in a situation where the other party has repeatedly violated international law, Merkel’s strategy has been highly ineffective, as Marton attests in the same chapter.

“And so, in late August 2015 Merkel announced—without warning—a change of policy. ‘Germany will not turn away refugees,’ she said, defying the EU’s Dublin Regulation and her usual caution. ‘If Europe fails on the question of refugees, then it won’t be the Europe we wished for,’ she continued, calling on the twenty-six other EU members to offer asylum to greater numbers of refugees, each according to its capacity […] No other leader in Europe or elsewhere spoke with such moral clarity about the West’s obligation toward the casualties of its never-ending wars.”

Merkel’s historic refugee policy in 2015 became one of her signature political decisions. Some critics blame this policy for the rise of the far-right movement in Germany, with the AfD becoming increasingly vocal in its anti-immigrant sentiment in response (See: Index of Terms).

“It was a rational decision but nonetheless a tough personal one. Merkel had seen faces distorted by hate and heard their obscenity-laced rage—all directed at her. She knew how contentious her fourth term would be, at home and abroad. But with the global rise of authoritarianism and populism, she ran because she saw no alternative. If she left the field, Trump, Putin, and Xi would have it to themselves.”

Merkel’s decision to run for a fourth term, despite facing intense personal attacks and widespread anger, reflects her commitment to rational leadership over personal comfort. By choosing to stay in the political arena, Merkel positioned herself as a crucial counterbalance to the rising influence of authoritarian leaders.

“Merkel increasingly noted the dangerous similarities between those four-hundred-year-old events and today, ‘because it is now roughly seventy years since the end of World War II, and those who experienced the war themselves will soon no longer be among us,’ she remarked sadly in a speech in May 2018. Looking around her, Merkel saw frightening portents of another global unraveling. ‘They feel they can do whatever they like. One more demand here…another there…and be a little more aggressive, and suddenly all order is in ruins,’ she said—without needing to name names.”

Merkel’s reflection on the historical parallels between post-World War II events and current global tensions illustrates her concern over the erosion of collective memory and the potential for repeating past mistakes. By pointing out the incremental and aggressive demands undermining global order without specifying culprits, Merkel implicitly criticizes contemporary political figures and movements threatening international stability.

“The Alternative for Germany posed a new challenge for a woman who built her career on her ability to find common ground with her opponents and then implement just enough of their policies to steal away their support. The AfD is a one-issue party, and that issue is a hatred of Angela Merkel and all that she stands for: refugees, women’s empowerment, marriage equality, the EU, and NATO. ‘She reflects a zeitgeist which is no longer current,’ Angela’s friend Shimon Stein noted when we met in his favorite Berlin café the morning after the elections.”

Merkel’s political strategy of co-opting her opponents’ policies to weaken their support was challenged by the rise of the AfD, a party defined by its opposition to her core values (See: Index of Terms). Merkel’s approach and the values she embodies were increasingly seen as outdated by a portion of the electorate, while highlighting the limitations of The Nature of Merkel’s Nonconfrontational Style.

“There was also a gendered element to the AfD’s success. The party tapped in to a phenomenon sometimes referred to as ‘Eastern Man’—a term used to describe working-class males who feel disadvantaged, as women in the East have fared better than men since the fall of the wall; many moved West at the first opportunity. (Only 9 percent of women cast their ballots for the AfD in 2017, while 28 percent of men did.) The town of Chemnitz, for instance, currently has only eight women for every ten men. Such demographics provided an ideal breeding ground for a male-dominated party. As the ultimate avatar of the successful ‘Eastern Woman,’ Angela Merkel daily reminds many Eastern Men of their failures.”

The disparity in voting patterns, with significantly more men supporting the AfD compared to women, displays the sense of resentment among these men as women have generally fared better in the post-Cold War world. Merkel, moreover, inadvertently intensified this resentment, as her prominence served as a daily reminder to these men of their perceived failures and displacement.

“Nations, like people, often learn more from failure than from triumph […] Merkel hails from a culture that, since its humiliating defeat in World War II, does not celebrate military victories and mostly flies its country’s flag to celebrate soccer championships. Some of Berlin’s most visited landmarks memorialize the catastrophic failures of the Third Reich; Auschwitz is Germany’s symbol of World War II. This is a nation aspiring to humility and to do better than it has in the past, and Merkel’s approach to leadership is similarly humble.”

The Nature of Merkel’s Nonconfrontational Style, shaped by Germany’s post-World War II culture of humility and reflection, contrasts with triumphalist narratives. The nation’s collective memory informs Merkel’s understated and modest approach to governance. Moreover, Merkel has built her career by addressing the German sense of guilt after WWII.

“A few days later, more than a year following his Sorbonne speech, Angela Merkel finally answered Macron’s plea for her support in constructing a ‘sovereign Europe.’ Looking buoyant and wearing a blue jacket to match the EU banner, she entered the European parliament in Strasbourg. Waving and smiling to the 705 members representing twenty-seven states, she mounted the podium of what she called ‘the greatest parliament in the world’ and surprised many. The chancellor who despises war said the time had come for ‘a real, true European army,’ endorsing one of Macron’s core ideas.”

Merkel's endorsement of a “real, true European army” marked a significant and unexpected shift in her stance, aligning with Macron’s vision for a more sovereign Europe. This surprising support from a leader traditionally averse to military matters points to a new situation in world politics, whereby countries that were historically committed to peacekeeping and neutrality—such as Germany, Sweden, and Finland—have changed their stance as a response to renewed Russian aggression.

“For Merkel, East Germany increasingly became about the sights, sounds, and smells of childhood. Asked what comes to mind when she recalls her youth, she replied, ‘Pines, and hay, and the smell of potatoes in the potato steamer. We had friends and families with whom we celebrated birthdays and Christmases; with whom we shared our grief. The fact that we couldn’t travel to America didn’t define every day.’”

This passage speaks to The Influence of Merkel’s East German Background. Merkel’s sensory connection to East Germany shows that, while her career has required complex strategy, her personal sensibilities have remained simple and down-to-earth, mostly in an attempt to balance out the stress of her job. This also reveals a dreamy, sensitive Merkel, which contrasts with the iron-clad image she has often displayed on the world political stage.

“Merkel addressed the nation as if they were her family. ‘The hardest part will be that we will miss human encounters,’ she warned. ‘But keeping our distance from others is a sign of caring…How high the number of victims will be, how many loved ones we lose, is largely in our hands.’ She closed with a plea: ‘Please take good care of yourself and take care of your loved ones…We have to find ways to show affection and friendship. Skype, phone, email, and maybe write letters again. The mail is getting delivered!’ Science and empathy delivered in equal measure.”

Merkel’s address to the nation during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores her calm yet serious demeanor as she communicates during a crisis. By acknowledging the emotional difficulty of missing human interactions while framing social distancing as an act of care, Merkel effectively combines empathy, scientific guidance, and a call to civic responsibility.