About thirteen to fourteen years ago, I was working my way through a brief Hayek phase, and I penned a road-to-serfdom piece (in Dutch) in which Geert Wilders figured as the symptom and effect of the Dutch corruption of the rule of law.
Eric Schleisser observes the political reality underlying the outcome of the Dutch election. Around 35 per cent of the Dutch electorate has always been willing to vote for a far-right candidate. As Trump has shown, that number is at least as high in the US (even if some who vote Republican supported Trump unwillingly). I've always thought that it's more like 25 per cent in Australia, as evidenced by the various occasions when far-right parties have surged.
The other thing that's crucial is the breakdown of hard neoliberal parties, like that of the outgoing Dutch PM Rutte.
Yes, the breakdown was entirely self-inflicted both strategically, tactically, and in government. But also, they have been in and near power for close to thirty years (and arguably 40 years), that it's probably healthy for it and the country if it goes into opposition. In a healthier country the left opposition would have been able to take over.
Following up on this, it looks as if Wilders' + BBB gains were more than matched by losses from the centre right parties that made up the previous government. That's consistent with my three-party analysis.
But I don't understand where NCS fits into the picture.
NSC is led by Omtzigt, who was part of the right wing of the old centrist Christian Democrats. (He is the politician that helped unmask the benefits scandal.) NSC and BBB recaptured a good part of the more socially reactionary and less urbane (and older) part of the old CDA electorate between them. If they had won the election (which seemed likely at the start of the campaign), nobody would be talking about a crisis of democracy now. (It's really VVD tactical campaigning that induced this result.)
Eric Schleisser observes the political reality underlying the outcome of the Dutch election. Around 35 per cent of the Dutch electorate has always been willing to vote for a far-right candidate. As Trump has shown, that number is at least as high in the US (even if some who vote Republican supported Trump unwillingly). I've always thought that it's more like 25 per cent in Australia, as evidenced by the various occasions when far-right parties have surged.
The other thing that's crucial is the breakdown of hard neoliberal parties, like that of the outgoing Dutch PM Rutte.
I had a go at all of this a while back https://crookedtimber.org/2016/02/29/the-three-party-system
Yes, the breakdown was entirely self-inflicted both strategically, tactically, and in government. But also, they have been in and near power for close to thirty years (and arguably 40 years), that it's probably healthy for it and the country if it goes into opposition. In a healthier country the left opposition would have been able to take over.
What are the prospects for a grand coalition of the next three parties?
Following up on this, it looks as if Wilders' + BBB gains were more than matched by losses from the centre right parties that made up the previous government. That's consistent with my three-party analysis.
But I don't understand where NCS fits into the picture.
NSC (sorry, got the initials wrong in the post).
NSC is led by Omtzigt, who was part of the right wing of the old centrist Christian Democrats. (He is the politician that helped unmask the benefits scandal.) NSC and BBB recaptured a good part of the more socially reactionary and less urbane (and older) part of the old CDA electorate between them. If they had won the election (which seemed likely at the start of the campaign), nobody would be talking about a crisis of democracy now. (It's really VVD tactical campaigning that induced this result.)