Fortuyn’s politics
Dave Winer has run Adam Curry’s Big Lie, a passionate response to the Fortuyn assassination.
Step away from the horror of the killing and look at Fortuyn’s declared policies: halt immigration, integrate existing immigrants, re-erect Dutch border controls, sack 25% of civil servants, reduce Dutch payments to the EU, end the system of consensus politics. This is idiosyncratic, reactionary politics. And however he dressed up his immigration policy, it appealed in part to some of the worst sentiments in the populace.
PF’s appeal can be partly explained by the WW2-inspired taboo on singling out any minority in Holland. Any slightly negative remark about foreign minority would be immediately be labeled ‘racist’, especially by the political left. So the very real problems that this (lack of) policy have caused (‘black’ schools, criminal groups, ‘ghetto’-forming, pressure on health care) have been mostly ignored by mainstream politicians.
PF was a very charismatic man who addressed these problems in layman’s terms, sometimes a bit over the top. Thus the bold statements, but he was certainly no racist, bigot or reactionary. He would also change his positions or contradict himself quite often. People didn’t seem to mind, lots had fallen in love with him.
And he was quite right about the 25% civil servants 🙂
Lance, I’ve been wrestling with this myself. Here’s a part of Fortuyn’s platform:
“Large groups in the community are lagging behind in social and cultural terms. These groups often originate from countries which did not participate in the Judeo-Christian-humanist developments which have been taking place in Europe for centuries. These shortfalls in development are highly regrettable, as they result in a divide in society and form a threat to the functioning of our large cities…”
Isn’t humanism supposed to have appeal for all humans? Do you need to grow up in a culture of humanists to live harmoniously in Western society? And don’t we often point to these social and cultural lags as reasons for economic underdevelopment?
The liberal social/economic system did win the long fight against alternative systems. It is the system that produces the most wealth, the greatest self-realization, and the greatest happiness for all. One of the underpinnings of this system was an extension of rights to disenfranchised groups. If a nation that has adopted this system brings in too many people that have ideas that reference a historical process that is counter to this system (particularly in regard to the rights of women and gays), then it is a problem. The Netherlands is a small nation, a large influx could swamp it.
My only question: most immigrants move to a nation because they agree with the system, and are as a result model citizens. They aren’t jaded and irresolute in their support for it. They know the alternative. So, are the immigrants to the Netherlands resistant to assimilation? Are their attitudes and voting behavior resulting in a blocking force to the continuation of the liberal democracy present in the Netherlands? Is it in jeopardy? PF said yes. I don’t know enough to contradict him. Nobody else will even look at this problem.
This issue needs to be addressed. There is a giant sucking sound in Europe right now as a result of rapidly delining birth rates. We need to get this right. The US may be closer to this than imagined (however, our immigration problem doesn’t have a major or realized impact on the extension of rights to disenfranchised groups).
In 30 years this entire question may not be a problem. The rate at which birth rates are declining world-wide may solve it for us. However, it doesn’t mitigate the pain we are feeling today.
Sincerely,
John Robb
Ditto to what JR said. My forebears came to the USA because they wanted to be Americans–they were prepared to buy into whatever that meant. It’s not unreasonable for a country to expect its immigrants to be prepared–eager, even–to do that. It’s probably necessary.
And I can hardly fault a Dutch politician for wanting to cut back on subsidies to Spanish olive-tree farmers (The Dutch pay about E112 per person to the EU, the Spanish receive about E170 per person, and about half that goes to agricultural subsidies).
My only question: most immigrants move to a nation because they agree with the system, and are as a result model citizens. They aren’t jaded and irresolute in their support for it. They know the alternative. So, are the immigrants to the Netherlands resistant to assimilation?
Yes, absolutely. The mostly liberal and tolerant culture of the Netherlands is actually rejected by the muslim communities. Social and economic security are the most important reasons for immigrants to come here. A law forcing newcomers to learn the language and customs was only recently passed, after it became evident that ‘natural’ integration wasn’t happening.
Are their attitudes and voting behavior resulting in a blocking force to the continuation of the liberal democracy present in the Netherlands? Is it in jeopardy? PF said yes.
In (certain parts of) the big cities these problems are definitely real (large concentartions of foreigners who don’t integrate), I’d say the whole country is not in danger of being overrun.
Michel Benevento
Amsterdam
I can’t helping that the American attitude towards immigration, citizenship and “assimilation” is one that has been somewhat idealised as part of the national myth, and tends to be applied outwards as if it were a universal, whereas it’s rather idiosyncratic. (It’s something that Josh Marshall discussed recently.) Let’s just say that it’s a century since my great-grandfather crossed the Irish Sea, and I don’t consider myself fully ‘assimilated’.
Anyway, my attitude to Fortuyn is that he held a rather self-conflicted position, in that his party advocated prejudice — in the original sense of pre-judging — towards Muslim immigrants, solely because a section of them had demonstrated prejudices of their own. Now, I don’t know how one defines “humanism”, but I’d assume that it entails judging people on their actions rather than the beliefs of their purported peers. PF also wanted to abolish the anti-discrimination clause which heads up the Dutch Constitution, which again strikes me as employing prejudice, ostensibly in the fight against prejudice. It’s the mentality of the gated community.