Dutch election analyzed by a Dutch voter

I asked a Dutch voter about “Geert Wilders Falls Short in Election, as Wary Dutch Scatter Their Votes” (nytimes). Here’s the response…

Typical NY Times. The statements in itself or all not too factually wrong, but the picture is way off.

Wilders won even if he didn’t win.

The anti-Islam agenda won big in Holland:

  1. Labor, the party that brought us immigration has ceased to exist, from being the largest since I remember.
  2. The right has moved very sharply anti-Islam to prevent Wilders to gain a huge victory. They refer to themselves as the “right type of populism”!
  3. The center (Christians and what the NYT calls “liberals”) also moved very sharply to the right to save their skins.
  4. Wilders will keep dominating the debate, which is what he wants.
  5. Whatever is left of the left, is now fractured into special interest, like animal welfare, old people, poor Muslims, and so on, and is unlikely to be able to set the agenda. (Apart from the Muslim party, they are also all anti-Islam now).

4 Comments »

  1. roguish

    March 16, 2017 @ 6:04 pm

    1

    The evidence that GroenLinks is ‘anti-Muslim’ is completely lacking. Perhaps someone else can provide some. But there is some evidence that Wilders has shifted the debate. Notice how the manifesto proposals on the left are stealing the clothes of the right. Point 5 of the party’s five point manifesto says: “5. One Society
    In the Netherlands we deal with our differences respectfully and we cherish democratic values and the rule of law. Therefore we want to:
    – institute tougher sentences for hate crimes;
    – teach asylum seekers Dutch and educate them about the Dutch constitution from day one;
    – hire a thousand additional police offers to work on safe neighborhoods.”

    Tougher sentencing, teaching the constitution and more police!

  2. Vince

    March 16, 2017 @ 7:38 pm

    2

    from the NYT article:

    Voters, who turned out in record numbers, nonetheless rewarded right and center-right parties that had co-opted parts of his [Wilders’] hard-line message, including that of the incumbent prime minister, Mark Rutte.

    This appears to agree with much of what your Dutch voter stated.

  3. Ivan

    March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 pm

    3

    The mass exodus from places like many Middle Eastern and African countries can be seen as a strong case for renewed colonialism/imperialism. The people are voting with their feet for a system where they would be much happier when ruled by foreigners. Establishing this sort of rule would be beneficial for everyone: Dutch would stop sniveling about immigrants disrupting their culture (whatever is left of it), and the potential immigrants could stay in the place of their birth and enjoy the rulers they seem to love so much. A win-win game.

    I cannot claim the originality of the idea. I was inspired by the seemingly successful experiment of slightly less than 1200 years ago when the warring Slavic tribes invited Varangians : и всѧ землѧ наша велика. и ѡбилна. а нарѧда въ неи нѣтъ. да поидете кнѧжиⷮ҇ и володѣть нами (“Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it; come and rule and have dominion over us.”

    It worked quite well then, until the Mongol-Tatar devastation. The Rurik dynasty ruled over Slavs for about 800 years with arguably good deal of success, at least at first. Since it worked then, why not now ?

  4. Vince

    March 16, 2017 @ 9:05 pm

    4

    Ivan: It may seem like a mass exodus. However, if you consider the phrase “voting with their feet”, it’s actually a small minority making the choice. Your sentiment doesn’t sound good.

Leave a Comment

Log in