Far right

[Hazir]

I just read this article on the website of the New York Times.

As usual, the subject is depicted as a politician of the far right, but I am starting to get some real doubts about that.

Wilders indeed is somebody who broke a consensus in a dutch political landscape that for close to a century was all about consensus. The latest consensus was that being in the EU was good and that globalisation, and the immigration that came with it - aside from some minor problems - was a good thing.

But obviously the consensus in politica wasn't carried by all of the nation; a lot of people feel upset about Brussels setting the rules that used to be set in The Hague. But what's more important, they don't feel the problems connected to immigration are minor at all. They feel that immigration is tearing at the very fabric of society. They feel that the lack of integration of big groups of immigrants makes life very unpleasant in big parts of the country. And to be honest, though they may be blowing things a bit out of proportion, they aren't wrong alltogether either.

The first time these people got a voice in politics was when Pim Fortuyn decided to get into politics. He, like Wilders, was described as a dangerous right winger and he didn't live to see the elections that swept his party into power. With Fortuyn killed though his party fell into disarray and by now pretty much has entirely disappeared.

And then there was Geert Wilders, a politician in the Liberal party and a personal protege of that party's leader Frits Bolkestein. The most remarkable about Wilders was his outrageous hair, I still don't quite get how somebody on purpose wants to walk around with a hairdo that looks like a permanent bad hair day. But then he was kicked out of his party for opposing the EU membership of Turkey and Theo van Gogh was killed for his participation in a film about the abuse of women by muslim men abusing the Koran to justify their deeds. The murderer, after killing Fortuyn, used a knife to pin a note Van Gogh that stated that - amongst others - Wilders would be killed too.

That was the end of normal life for Wilders. Ever since that day he's been travelling whereever he goes with a security detail and for a long time he couldn't even live in his own house with his own family.

I think that a lot of the extreme things Wilders says about Islam have their roots in that experience. Wilders also may very well be past that point where he cares any longer about the repercussions of what he says about Islam because it can't get much worse than it already is.

On the other hand, Wilders has kept his cards very close to his chest so far and besides his vehement anti-Islamic intentions has said very little about what he thinks or wants. The only non-negotiable issue for his party (after the elections) would be maintaining the retirement age for social security at 65. All other policies are negotiable as far as Wilders is concerned. To me this means that he will even be willing to participate in a government that carries out none of his anti-Islam rhetoric.

I haven't made up my mind yet, but over the next few weeks I am going to try to work out if Wilders is really on the far right or that he's something different than the cardboard cut out most journalists make of him.

[Ziggy Stardust]

On the other hand, Wilders has kept his cards very close to his chest so far and besides his vehement anti-Islamic intentions has said very little about what he thinks or wants. The only non-negotiable issue for his party (after the elections) would be maintaining the retirement age for social security at 65. All other policies are negotiable as far as Wilders is concerned. To me this means that he will even be willing to participate in a government that carries out none of his anti-Islam rhetoric.

Isn't the retirement age of 65 close to non-negotiable for many of the other main parties? If that's the case, does he really want to govern or does he want to play the martyr again when coalition talks with his party turn out negative. I'd suspect he'd be very happy in the opposition for another couple of years to gain popularity than actual engage in policy making which will often decrease the popularity.

I think that a lot of the extreme things Wilders says about Islam have their roots in that experience. Wilders also may very well be past that point where he cares any longer about the repercussions of what he says about Islam because it can't get much worse than it already is.

I could understand that sentiment for personal reasons, I just don't want that sentiment in government.

[Dreadnaught]

I suppose this is a question that would have to wait until his party actually has power over the issues he talks about, but do you think he seriously wants to do things like ban the Koran or he's just being a provocateur?

[Hazir]

Oh I think from his personal experience he's really in favor of banning the Koran. The way he experiences it first hand it's the justification for some people to threathen his life. From that perspective he's not even entirely wrong. Because those people do use it as justifcation. As such, Wilders and Osama bin Laden and his ilk have got a fairly similar view of Islam if you don't look at the why of their view.

[Dreadnaught]

That's an interesting way to look at things -- though as a leader do you think he would be competent? And actually execute such a thing?

I feel like these kinds of promises to "ban the Koran" are the things that provoke outrage, which encourages people to vote for a party...but they don't actually want to live in a state that bans the Koran. Or am I misreading this? I am a bit tipsy to be honest.

[Hazir]

That's an interesting way to look at things -- though as a leader do you think he would be competent? And actually execute such a thing?

I feel like these kinds of promises to "ban the Koran" are the things that provoke outrage, which encourages people to vote for a party...but they don't actually want to live in a state that bans the Koran. Or am I misreading this? I am a bit tipsy to be honest.

Some reasons I see why people might vote for this man/party;

1. they hate the present political elite, I write that down to the fact that they for too long ignored some real concerns about immigration. Aside from all the talk you could have about Islam and race, what is a serious flaw in dutch immigration policies is that we attract people with next to no education or skills who don't really are an asset to society. It says something if you need a rule in a country that you can only get residency for your spouse if you have an income 20% higher than welfare. The message 'we' get is that it's hard/impossible to do something.

2. there is a lot of hostility against religion in general in this country, and especially religion that doesn't 'know its place' or is expanding. That makes Islam a logical target, because it's growing and is finding its place in a country where it had next to none in the past. A lot of people want to see churches disappear, they certainly don't want mosques in their place.

3. there is a real problem with dual citizenship young dutch morroccans and other young immigrants. They are over represented in the crime statistics and in some places make life very difficult not quite unlike gangs in the US do. Wilders promises to deport these people.

4. prohibiting Koran, I think there is no way this could be enforced, and Wilders knows it. He would have to withdraw from the EU, the Council of Europe, cancel the ratification of the ECHR and he'd have to rewrite the constitution. Then he could ban Koran. I don't see it happen.

5. prohibiting headscarfs; won't be easy but not impossible.

Overall what I think that people want to achieve by voting Wilders, is forcing a way out of the impasse we find ourselves in right now, where the ruling elite only seems to come up with the reaction that solving the problems we have with can't be solved.

[Hazir]

The following is taken from the website of the PVV. In Italics I tell what I think about it.

Taxation

€16bn of tax cuts for citizens and business, to be achieved by significantly lower payroll taxes. To be financed through cuts in the number of bureaucrats, contributions to the EU, subsidies, developement aid.

This doesn't sound particularly far right to me. It's a little bit right of center for sure. It also probably wouldn't hurt to cut a bit in the bureaucracy and as far as I am concerned, abolishing developement aid alltogether sounds like a good plan.

As for the contributions question; it's strange for me to see Dutch politicians being this short sighted. If there is one country that's benefitting from the open market that the EU created and maintains it's The Netherlands. The money we send to Brussels is money well spent. We may not get it back in subsidies, but our economy is much bigger than it
would be without the EU.

€1bn extra for recipients of social security

I didn't really understand this one; there seems to me not a single reason why we should burden the working people of
today more for a generation that most likely already has private pension plans on top of social security.

Extra money for more police on the streets, more teachers in schools and more nurses in hospitals to be financed by cutting bureaucracy and overhead, and if possible a part of a possible budget surplus should be directed towards
these sectors

I can understand this sentiment, and think that probably we should spend more money in these sectors. And god knows we could do with some less red tape. However, where he loses me is where he starts spouting nonsense about using the budget surplus for this. It makes the promise empty, very empty in a time where there is no surplus to reckon with.
Also, it smacks of New Labour's 'government spending as investments'. I don't like it.

Lower gasprices through lower taxation.

Actually I am against this, I think gasprices should contain all the costs connected to the infrastructure, so that
using a car gets taxed rather than owning one. I also see no reason why some of the taxes shouldn't be used for other
purposes.

Continued deductability of interest on mortgages.

I know I used it, but I am still against this 'socialism for the middle and upper classes. The idea of stimulating home ownership was stupid to start with, but this system in which the government takes my money to give it back to me if I buy a home is outright stupid. It just pumps money around, makes a bigger bureaucracy necessary and it also distorts the real estate market in the country. It should go, and sooner rather than later.

Less ministries, less civil servants.

Can't hurt to look into that.

No higher local taxes.
I am not so certain that I can support this. Those local taxes go into tangible things that
directly influence the quality of life in my direct environment. I would rather pay more taxes than put up with bad
public transport, potholes in streets, bad street lighting and dirt everywhere.


All in all this doesn't really sound like a far right set of policies so far. It's more of a small-government type
of rhetoric that probably puts him to the right of the center. But not by far in many countries. I saw some things that
are a bit vague and thin on the ground when it comes to how to achieve them, but nothing too shocking or outlandish.

[Flixy]

Seems reasonable, but indeed vague, and a bit populist (in the sense that he basically wants to give money to everybody but doesn't specify if the money's sources could cover that).

I do hope they prepared this a little better than their previous positions though: their view on nuclear energy was a joke (equating isotope production with power production, for starters).

[ImAnOgre]

Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

[Hazir]

New developement, Wilder's main opponent will be the present mayor of Amsterdam Job Cohen. That means if I am not mistaken this city will finally be rid of that failure. I'm so happy.

And YES YES YES, he has resigned. !!!!

[Dreadnaught]

What did Job Cohen do wrong? Every six months or so left-leaning papers in the US mention him in a positive light, but never got a sense of what his deal was.

[Hazir]

What has he done right? What has he done at all? It was like having a man in charge whose main instinct was to sit on his hands. I'm not claiming all problems could easily have been solved, but Cohen wasn't doing anything but 'drinking tea' with the socalled representatives of minorities. That's all nice and good, this bridge building, but those people do not represent the out of control thugs in their community. These need to be taken care of using the legal system.

Strangely enough it seems like Cohen is seen as the best choice for PM by 55% according to a relatively reliable poll. The same poll gives Balkenende (present, demissioned) PM 25% and Wilders 17%. If that's right then this change may turn out to be exactly what PvdA (Labour) needed.

[Dreadnaught]

Cohen wasn't doing anything but 'drinking tea' with the socalled representatives of minorities.

Sounds like that's what comes across this side of the pond: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/in...amsterdam.html

[Hazir]

And now we're five years further, and nothing happened. Besides the fact that 1 in 5 people are really fed up with the way of doing things of Cohen and his ilk and are voting for a gorilla politician.

[ar81]

Immigration takes place because of poverty. Immigrants may prefer to stay at home, but they have no jobs.
Nowadays a different situation is taking place: Jobs are going overseas too.
So it is immigration of jobs.

Which one is better?

It happens when there is poverty somewhere else: you either get the bother of immigration or your country loses jobs.