Who is Germany?

A few years back the government launched a campaign called "You Are Germany" in the attempt to encourage people to (as it seemed) have more children but also identify more strongly with our country.
Now, less than a week before the general election, I am beginning to have serious concerns about who really is Germany.
The reason is a recent article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ; a major nationwide newspaper). It describes the new style most parties have used for their election manifestos: "Simple Language". As the name suggests this is a radically simplified form of German, which focuses on the active voice, short sentences and avoids metaphors and any foreign or high-brow words. It uses few nouns and many simple verbs, like "make", "do" or "be". In fact, it strongly resembles the way you'd speak to a little child and was originally formalised to help people with mental disabilities or learning deficits.
Some examples (as well as I can translate them into English):
"Cars make lots of fumes. So there should be more trains." - Social Democrats (SPD)
"Weather all over the whole world we call climate. Because of fumes it gets warmer and warmer. That makes icebergs melt. Then the seas have too much water. And there is flooding." - Green Party
Since it is now being used for election material I wonder what this should tell me. Are most voters around 10 years old or have mental disabilities or learning deficits? Has the general level of education in Germany dropped so low that the use of such simple terms is necessary for people to understand party agendas? Or do politicians think their voters are just a bunch of retards? I get the feeling it's a mixture of the latter two. I guess, that is not surprising. Leaders and philosophers throughout history have known that the general public as a whole, the masses, are stupid.
Consider Sir Max Beerbohm saying: "You cannot make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position you can make a crowd of men."
What surprises me more is that the FAZ seems to applaude this new development (unless it's very cleverly disguised sarcasm). They even seemed to chide the Liberal Party for not following this move. I for one appreciate that the Liberals obviously still assume their voters have a certain minimum intelligence.
Surely there are people with learning problems or mental disabilities in Germany. They should not be excluded from daily life. I just wonder if their mental capabilities should be taken as the new national standard. Or if somebody with drastically impaired mental capabilities could be trusted to make a mature decision and contribute to the future of our country.
And what's more is that this deliberate use of Simple Language over-simplifies potentially complex issues for the reader. It's one thing to use simple terms to explain to mentally impaired people what global warming means. To discuss possible solutions and how to implement them, and then let the impaired person make an informed choice on who to trust is an entirely different matter.
Moreover, the naïve ordinary reader may then also have the impression that the problem (and its solution) are that easy - "it gets warmer because of fumes, so let there be more trains". The thing is that these issues aren't as simple as that. It may be uncomfortable for the average citizen but that's the way it is. And to relieve people of the need to do their own thinking would mean to breed a nation of morons who get their knowledge of the world spoon-fed by the government. Another brave new world.

Augmented Reality

I've been subject to an interesting opinion today.
I was talking to someone I know; without thinking too much I said that wherever there's my computer I feel at home. The reply took me a bit by surprise:
"Great home ... the Internet.
Great friends ... who give you imaginary hugs.
Great girlfriend ... at the other end of the world, who you'll never smell.
Great reading ... without holding a book in your hands or being able to smell the ink.
Great communication ... without mimics or gestures, without seeing eyes in front of you or smelling someone's breath or hearing the loud laughing of a friend ring in your ears."
I tried to argue that it is this very technology that brings people from as far as different continents closer together.
"Some closeness", came the retort, "that can only come from someone who has long since forgotten how to live with all their senses."
I never got a chance at arguing this further since even this conversation took place in cyberspace. It did get me thinking, though. It is a very current issue. Politicians have been speaking against services like facebook or twitter arguing that young people spend way too much time and energy on the web without forming real relationships. So, I'd like to continue this argument - virtually, so to speak.
Firstly, we'd have to take into account a certain degree of technophobia on the part of some members of older generations. It's a fear of the rapid development and all the new possibilities - and risks - the Internet has opened up. On the part of my acquaintance this much more due to a philosophical point of view (and a strong and mundane desire to pick a fight). Still, there undeniably is some truth in it.
Internet friendships rarely ever go deeper than what you'd call acquaintances in real life. No matter how many hugs or smiles you send, social networking sites may call them "friends" but if we're honest most of them are just entries in a contact list. You can never be part of their lives and they cannot partake in yours. Relationships that go any further than friendship seem so easy but remain unsatisfying since you will never feel the warmth, the closeness that another person next to you brings.
On the other hand, however, long-distance friendships are not new. In the past, they were called pen-friends. Of course, times have changed. You exchange email addresses instead of postal codes. Previously, you had no more than the written word to carry your meaning. Today, with faster and faster Internet connections, you can write letters, use instant messaging to communicate in real time, make voice or even video calls to talk face to face. Web logs allow you to publish your thoughts while platforms like facebook allow you to share pretty much everything with your chosen friends from your favourite movie over your latest holiday snapshot to the contents of your bookshelf. Online libraries, encyclopedias and dictionaries are easily searchable and available 24 hours a day. Online news and information services - corporate but especially independent - are an effective way for people from around the globe to exchange ideas and opinions.
Well, I know it's not all as vanilla as all that. Social networks have their own risks and hazards, people may not be who they seem, and information may be unreliable. But for now I'm just concerned with a princple discussion here.
So, what's the conclusion? I believe it's somewhere in the middle. In terms of utilities, I think the pros have it. It's the human factor where things get difficult. Of course, Internet relationships can never (and probably should never) replace real-life relationships. Even with fully immersive virtual reality it would probably not be entirely the same. But still, social networks have helped me get back in touch with class mates I thought I would never hear of again. A friend that I kept in touch with via the Internet recently got me a ticket to a concert of my favourite band. Instant messengers allowed me share thoughts and feelings with friends that have moved far away. And keep in mind that the argument that started all this also took place via an instant messenging service. Doesn't that prove my point? Without the technology this person was condemning so harshly there would have been no way of sharing that naïve opinion in the first place.
The truth of the matter, I believe, is that like all technology the Internet cannot replace the human touch. The virtual world(s) of the Internet cannot become a healthy substitute for the real world. But it can help us exchange thoughts, stay in touch and up to date with the people we care about - a modern evolution of the classic pen friends. Instead of a virtual substitute, a virtual or alternate reality for escapism I see the Web much more as an enhancement to our lives, an environment that opens new possibilities or channels of communication, that broadens our horizon. Something that doesn't make our senses obsolete but can extend them. An augmented reality.