Is a live blog in the debate about the extreme right -wing violence in The Hague really needed? You actually only do that when the developments follow each other quickly and a lot of new is expected at the same time. The debate was Thursday, five days after the riots.
Moreover, the subject had already been discussed on Tuesday during question time. In the evening it was about again during a debate about the fight against anti -Semitism. Most of the air was out, I thought.
So that wasn’t. And actually I could have known that. Just before the elections there is suddenly a possibility to determine the tone of the campaign.
The debate moved between the bandwidth of Think leader Stephan van Baarle (“After eighty years there were openly fascists through our streets”) and BBB member Caroline van der Plas (“His fathers, mothers, young people, grandfathers and grandmothers. They are people who love the Netherlands”).
Also on Saturday during the GroenLinks-PvdA congress in Rotterdam, they continued on this track. “85 years after the bombing we still feel the scars of extreme right and fascist violence,” said party leader Jeroen Postma of the Rotterdam municipal fraction. “In this city we feel stronger than ever: never again.”
‘You cannot defend yourself against a disqualification as a person’
You no longer bring those views together. That is of course not necessary. Polarization is not necessarily bad. It can even be good for a democracy, says political scientist Tom van der Meer (UvA). Only now it is mainly made personally.
“We have such polarization too much,” he told Trouw last week. “It is not about the content and also leaves little room for a compromise; you cannot defend yourself against a disqualification as a person.”
Just before the summer, former VVD leader Klaas Dijkhoff argued that the most important dividing line between parties is no longer left or right, but democrats versus anti-democrats. According to him, the campaign should go there.
Now it is striking that parties such as D66, CDA and GroenLinks-PvdA are now also trying to inform this in response to the riots in The Hague. But not precisely Dijkhoffs ‘own’ VVD.
The liberals initially tried to depoliticize the violence by not consciously sticking the advice of the terror fighter NCTV in it. That too was food for a considerable discussion in the room.
In short: the air was not nearly out of the debate and nothing indicates that this will soon be the case.
Try to pour that into a soundbite
The question is which party can benefit the most from this. If the campaign is mainly about asylum and migration, then those are the parties who have claimed that subject. That is of course mainly the PVV, just like in 2023.
But if the debate about the extreme right -wing riots is converted into a discussion about democracy and anti -democracy, there are very different parties that have a better story about it. D66, GroenLinks-PvdA and the CDA are now trying to take advantage of it.
The challenge is that this is not possible without nuance and it is often snowed under in a campaign.
Dijkhoff recently addressed the Council of State during a meeting on this theme. He said: “The core of the vulnerability of the democratic constitutional state is that it is not an absolute truth either, but a shared conviction. And if it falls away, then we are very vulnerable in one go.”
A nice description. Try to pour that into a caught soundbite.
Is a live blog really needed for the debate on far-right violence in the Hague? You only do that when developments follow each other quickly and a lot of news is expected at the same time. The Debate was on Thursday, Five Days After the Riots.
Moreover, the subject had already discussed Already Been on Tuesday. In The Evening, IT was discussed again a Debate on Combating Anti-Semitism. Most of the Tension had dissipated, I thought.
That was not the case. And actual I Could Have Known That. Just before the elections, there is Suddenly an Opportunity to Determine the Tone of the Campaign.
The Debate Moved Between the Bandwidth of Think Stephan van Baarle (“After Eighty Years, Fascists were openly walking through our streets again”) and BBB Member Caroline van der Plas (“They Are Fathers, Grandpas, Molehers. Netherlands “).
On Saturday, The GroenLinks-Pvda Congress in Rotterdam Continued on this Path. “85 years after the bombing, we still feel the scars of far-right and fascist violence,” Said Jeroen Postma, Leader of the Rotterdam Municipal Group of the Party. “In this city we feel stronger than ever: never again.”
‘You Cannot Defend Yourself Against A Disqualification As A Human Being’
You can’t Bring Those Views Together Anymore. Or course, that is not necessary either. Polariazation is not Necessarily Bad. It can be good for a democracy, say’s political scientist Tom van der Meer (UvA). Only now it is Mainly Made Personal.
“We have too much of Such Polariazation,” he told Trouw Last Week. “It is not about the content and also leaves little room for compromise; you cannot defend yourself against a disqualification as a human being.”
Just Before the Summer, Former VVD Leader Klaas Dijkhoff Argued that the most importing dividing line Between Parties is no longer Left or Right, But Democrats versus Anti-Democrats. That is what the campaign should be about, accordance to him.
Now it is striking that Parties Such as D66, CDA and GroenLinks-Pvda are now also trying to highlight this in response to the riots in the Hague. But Dijkhoff’s ‘Own’ VVD is not.
The Liberals Initial Tried to Depoliticize the Violence by ConsciOutly Not Labeling IT, Against the Advice of Terrorism Expert NCTV. That too was Fodder for a Considerable Discussion in the House.
In short: The Air was far from out of the debate and there is no indication that this will be the case anytime son.
Try to put that in a soundbite
The Question is which party can benefit the most from this. If the campaign mainly revolves around asylum and migration, then those are the parties that have claimed that subject. That is of Course Mainly the PVV, Just Like in 2023.
But if the debate about the far-right riots is turned into a discussion about democracy and anti-democracy, there are very different parties that have a better story about this. D66, GroenLinks-Pvda and the cda are now trying to benefit from this.
The Challenge is that Cannot Be Done Without Nuance and That is of OVENDHADOWED in A Campaign.
Dijkhoff Recently Addressed the Council of State Duration A Meeting on this Theme. He said: “The core of the vulnerability of the democratic rule of law is that it is not an absolute truth, but a shared conviction. And if that disappears, we are sauddenly very vulnerable.”
A nice description. Just try to put that into a catchy soundbite.