Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 2:29 PM

The big story out of yesterday's Dutch elections was the success of Geert Wilders' anti-Islam, anti-immigration Freedom Party. The party nearly tripled its seats in parliament going from 9 to 24 and will likely be invited to join a coalition government by the overall winner, the center-right Liberal Party. Wilders did significantly better than was indicated by pre-election polls, which had him finighing the night with only 18 seats. Many commentators see the infamous Bradley effect at work:
"The fact that Wilders' Freedom Party gained more than pre-election polls had forecast could be partly explained by voters being reluctant to admit they will vote for a controversial candidate due to social desirability reasons," said Alfred Pijpers, a senior political researcher at Clingendael, the Netherlands Institute of International Relations.
The phenomenon is known as the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, the Los Angeles mayor who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls.
Pijpers added that the popularity of Wilders could further be attributed to a moderation of his tone during the last weeks of the campaign. "He started to smile more and let go of his strong anti-Islam rhetoric," Pijpers said.
Having seen Wilders turn on the charm in person, I can imagine that he's a pretty strong campaigner, but his stance on Islam pretty much defines his brand as a politician and I find it hard to believe that he changed perceptions that much in the final weeks.
A number of readers jumped on me for accepting the Bradley Effect -- the idea that voters lie to voters to avoid being perceived as racist -- as an easy causal explanation after the French National Front's surprisingly strong showing in regional elections in March. And yes, this is still a controversial idea in U.S. politics as well. But with Wilders' and Le Pen's gains, not to mention the 59 percent of Swiss voters who supported the minaret ban compared to the 37 percent who said they would, this does seem to be a factor in the recent rise of the European far-right.
The Liberal party is the conservative party?
"the center-right Liberal Party"
I know that this is probably a result of political drift over the years, that the Liberal party was, at one point, the liberal party. However, this seems kind of absurd. The one thing I like about our US parites is their names, "Democrats" and "Republicans." The are perfectly vague terms, so the parties can shift all they want and it never looks weird.
The Nazi part or the Communist part need to stick with a certain set of consistent opinions, or they look silly.
But with Wilders' and Le Pen's gains, not to mention the 59 percent of Swiss voters who supported the minaret ban compared to the 37 percent who said they would, this does seem to be a factor in the recent rise of the European far-right.
Can someone from France, Sweden, Holland explain the general feelings now towards muslims? Why is tolerant Holland getting fed up with its Muslim population?
All of this is simply my opinion.
Far-right parties have been gaining popularity in Europe in general, not just in the Netherlands (they don't like it when you call their country "Holland"). The countries in which these gains have been made are often the countries with the highest percentages of minorities, coupled with the highest levels of immigration. France, for example, has the greatest number of Muslims in Europe. The number of Muslims in the Netherlands is also very high. Starting a few years back, there were more Muslim births than those of the native population in the the largest Dutch cities, those being Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague, and Utrecht. "Mohammad" is now the most common boy's name in those four cities. You can read about these trends here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/6022588/Mohammed-is-most-popular-boys-name-in-four-biggest-Dutch-cities.html
The murder of Theo van Gogh was also a huge shock for many of the Dutch, and changed many people's perception of Muslims. You can read about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29
The integration of the Muslim populations of Europe has generally failed. Whether this is due to the government's failure to integrate them or the immigrant's lack of desire to integrate is obviously a hotly debated topic, but both must be true to some extent. Great swaths of the Muslims in Europe suffer from unemployment, as many came for factory jobs that Europe has now outsourced to China. Europe's welfare and unemployment benefits are very generous, though, which enables them to live in comfort without ever having to work. Thus, many don't interact with Europeans, don't learn the language well, don't associate with their European co-workers, and aren't forced to assimilate to get ahead in their workplaces or society.
The enormous cultural differences between Europeans and Muslims is also a source of tension. Very few Europeans today are religious, many Muslims are. Most Europeans believe in notions like secularism, the separation of Church and State, the equality of men and women, sexual freedom, gay rights, and an open society. Many Muslims are fundamentally opposed to these principles, as traditional Islam mandates the unity of religious and political authority, and prohibits much of this conduct. For example, Islamic law states that a married adulterer should be stoned, and that an unmarried adulterer receive 80 lashes. Homosexuality is strictly forbidden. This is a generalization, but much of Arab or Pakistani society is insular, clan-based, and very conservative. This illiberal thinking pushes many liberal Europeans toward intolerance, because how can one be tolerant towards an ideology which is itself against tolerance? The late politician Pim Fortuyn comes to mind, a Dutchman who was also very much opposed to Islam, as he was a homosexual. He was also murdered, though not by a Muslim, but by a Dutchman who claimed to be defending Muslims and minorities.
Anyways, that might be part of the reason.
typo not sweden obviously!
you cannot have your pie and eat it too
It is not possible to have a state with public education, public healthcare, and libertarian social policies, but to also have open immigration. The reality is that immigration is the enemy of public education and health care, and that the crime that comes with poor immigrants will force states to become police states. There is such thing as cultural superiority.
Tolerance of intolerance will lead to the destruction of western civilization. Japan has the right attitude toward immigrants, use them as little as possible, deport them as soon as possible, and replace them with robots in all possible situations. Japan and other immigrant-restrictive countries will be the sole preservationists of western civilization as weak, guilt-ridden Europe goes bankrupt and falls under Sharia law caring for the worlds uneducated, extremist and intolerant.
In the Netherlands there are regions outside the big cities that do not have a lot of immigrants.
The people in these regions only hear negative sounds from the cities where immigrants live and from all over Europe, such as France and Sweden for example.
If you look at the votes per district, shockingly in these parts of the Netherlands the majority voted on PVV, Geert Wilders Party, as an self defense mechanism or counter attack on what they believe is to take over the Netherlands gradually; an tolerance to muslim culture that is so progressive it will change the Netherlands. Face it, muslims are portrayed as people who tend to be no-conformists because of their strong believe in the Islam. I must state though that every party in the Netherlands most likely does not want to invite the PVV for an coalition as told otherwise in this article. Wilders ideas about immigration and anti muslim stance is not representative for the view of the rest of the dutch parties. Actually the significance between the PVV and the rest of the dutch parties are so small that this is the reason why it will be unlikely that the PVV will join the coalition and still will remain as an opposing party. Non the less is it disturbing that there is this much uproar for this intolerance against muslims. But the parties that are involved in forming an coalition will not dare to take on the PVV as in Brussels already is being whispered that the EU will not take Geert Wilders or any one from his party seriously and that it will be an huge downfall on the Netherlands character in the EU. A lot of people who voted on the PVV do not seem to think of the reputation of Netherlands outside of the Netherlands and do not know what they are in for if Geert Wilders will be an spokesperson for the Netherlands. It is an shame and outrage for the Netherlands that so many short sighted people have voted for this man, but even more so an bigger problem for the Netherlands that is becoming more and more divided. This could also be an reason why the PVV found so many votes; the CDA, what used to be the biggest party for ages, tried to run the elections with Balkenende for an third time in a row. Balkenende was the Prime Minister for 8 years and led four cabinets which al four never served a full 4 year term. So he got elected 2 times for Prime Minister but lost a lot of his trust from his followers. They are fed up and want a electoral shift and it seems that a lot of CDA followers believe that Wilders can make a shift. The only thing is that CDA itself never wants to govern with the PVV in one coalition. So Wilders draws a lot attention but he is surely not representative for the general feeling of the Dutch people towards muslims. I would call it the "Change" syndrome.
In a way fitting to our fast pasted consuming society in which nothing lasts for ever and people strive for something better and by doing so they forget to appreciate the things that made the Netherlands so unique.
Tom Nijhuis, I generally agree with your remarks about Wilders. I don't believe that the parties that will form the new coalition government will want Wilders as a partner. However, if his party is included in the government, I expect that the government will not last long, and that we will have a new election within a year or two, just as was the case when Lijst Pym Fortuyn was a part of the government.
As for Wilders himself, he is a Johnny-one-note, fear-mongering, xenophobic clown. He most certainly does not represent Dutch social and political values.
Dutch pollsters now have a new term for the Bradley-effect. They've rebranded it to the "curtainvote".
Behind the curtains of electoral booths, voters apparently make different decisions than they would admit to phone-pollers...
Chrs from the low countries!
When nearly all of Europe and Russia were competing to see who could exterminate the most Jews, the Dutch sheltered and welcomed their Jewish citizens and refugees, always risking their own lives. The Dutch are a most gracious and humane people. And again, they rolled out the welcome mat to Muslims. That the country is now turning on the Muslim population indicates something far more alarming about Islam than it does about the Dutch.
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(10)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE