I think I've made a right choice in supporting the Progress Party. To me, this is not about one party having captured the ideal of a good society. It's about making short-term choices about which currently available political force is likely to benefit us most. Right now, Norway needs a populist blood infusion from the right. That's what I hope for the Progress Party to achieve, not perfect government, and that's what I'm getting more and more convinced they'll provide.

For instance, here's a statement from leader Carl I. Hagen at the party convention this week:

In the same way as the Socialist Left were the useful idiots of the communists in Moscow, they are now the useful idiots of Saddam Hussein. The Socialist Left, and partly also the Center Party, oppose a military build-up. They criticize the US for "pointing a gun to the head" of Iraq, to show that they will put power behind the threats of a military campaign. There are only two ways this conflict can be solved, through voluntary disarmament by Iraq, as we of course all hope for, or through use of force. [..]

There is now an internal split in Nato. It's inconcievable to me why, when Turkey asks for help, the Socialist Left believes we shouldn't participate. They are jeopardizing our security. What if Norway ever needs the help of Nato? If we had followed the line of the Socialist Left, we could not feel assured of being helped by Nato. Through its views on this issue, the Socialist Left is gambling with Norway's security. This is a line the Progress Party opposes strongly. [..]

When I was a kid, I asked my parents why nobody interferred with and stopped Hitler when they saw what was happening in the 30's. I don't want my grandchildren in 8 to 10 years to ask me why nobody disarmed Saddam Hussein.

And here are some statements he made at a pro-Israeli rally a few weeks ago, which I forgot to report at the time:

As I see it, Israel has defended itself against intruders all along. Arafat is the person who invented airplane hijackings. You can't have the same relationship with a terrorist as with those who are victims of that terror. [..]

I hope that the next correspondent from the state channel [NRK] knows Arabic, so we can know what Arafat really says, not only what he says in English to foreign reporters.

None of these are new thoughts as such in Norway, but they are rare spoken so clearly by a party leader. Being pro-Israel is especially rare in a secular politician. This is usually the domain of Christian Israel apologists, who's view of Israel is rather like an old lady's belief that her nephew can't possibly do anything wrong.

When the European 8 signed their letter of support for the US, (the point of which was not the words themselves, but that the French and Germans didn't sign them), that was interpreted in the US as support coming from those specific countries. I think that was a mistake. There are no pro-American countries on the continent. But there are pro-American politicians, and pro-American sections of the population. (By pro-Americans I mean people who view the US as basically a force for good.) Those eight are countries where pro-American politicians happen to be in power right now. This will change. Pro-American politicians go in and out of power.

My point is that Carl I. Hagen is one of those politicians. If he had been PM of Norway today, as he may become in 2005, he would have been asked to sign that letter, and I think he would have.

From the excerpts you quote, it does sound as though this candidate is speaking with common sense that seems to be lacking in much of Europe and the US today. He will probably be smeared by the dominant press, as President Bush has been on a daily basis. However, the people have a way of tuning out the propagandists and finding out what they really need to know.
Good Luck.

I don't entirely blame the US for the current messy situation, but part of maintaining political support from European leaders will be keeping US officials like Cheney and Rumsfeld from saying insulting things about them in public... even true insulting things.

Since the US and its fragile coalition clearly is going to invade Iraq, since the individual people of the world are *overwhelmingly* opposed to the invasion (wrongly but understandably, I think), and since hope of much broader support is pretty much gone... I hope that it happens soon, that victory is swift, and that it ends up happily enough that it can pass mercifully into collective forgetfulness, like so many other wars have. Having helped screw up the pre-war political run-up, the Bush administration cannot afford to screw up the war or what comes after.

If the tension builds much longer and the opposition to the Iraq invasion hardens into a powerful anti-US bloc of nations covering most of the globe, including industrialized nations with more or less modern military forces, the new century will be a grim one for the US, and, I think, for freedom in general. The War on Terror will end up as an inconsequential footnote to the War on Everybody, most of the world will divide up once again into puppet despotisms with superpower patrons, and the opportunity for a free, democratic world that appeared post-1989 will be lost.

Matt: I think you overestimate the dangers to the US for following a tough line when it comes to foreign policy. The danger is if America DOESN'T follow a tough line: then the jackals will be all over the weakened US, taking nips and tears over the years.

And I have little faith in a block of nations against the US: there are so many socio-political-economic divisions in the world that such a block would break up in no time.

Believe me, there is a not-so-vocal sector in Europe which quietly enjoys the fact that the power elites in Europe have little effect on Bush, because Europe itself hasn't really decided who's in charge.

As to Cheney and Rumsfeld saying insulting things, I look forward for more: these insults have an element of truth in them, and there are many Europeans who welcome the straight-shooting words of these American leaders.

You really have no idea of how American leaders and average American citizens have been insulted over the years in European media. Most of it never gets translated into English. In fact, Europeans are quite two-faced about that. It's time they had a taste of their own medicine.

Matt, this country does not need to be loved by Frankenreich.

Other than Britain, which countries have a modern force? No one. Nukes, yes, we'll have to take care of those.

And as Mark pointed out, for decades it has been war on America. Words are a weapon, too. We're not the only ones who project the image of America. Listen to the Baghdad Broadcasting Corp. (British Broadcasting Corp.)Check out Andrew Sullivan or bias.bbc.

And we have to insult France in public, it's against the law for the peons to do so. What are they going to do, fine W? By The Sun putting a worm's head on Chiraq and selling copies in France, it could be liable for a fine of up to 45K euros.

There's really no "freedom of speech" against France's elite.

Well, I do see the stuff that appears in the left-wing British media, and it occasionally scares the crap out of me; I shudder to think what would happen if Blair's pro-US stance somehow alienated the country sufficiently that some faction of Pilgeresque inclinations actually took power. (I do understand that this is pretty unlikely.)

I suppose it's not the US taking a hard line that bothers me, it's failing to consider the political consequences of unnecessary trash talk. There's plenty of New York Post columnists to bash Chirac and the UNSC; Rumsfeld doesn't have to play along.

I also still think that, had we played this better, we could have ended up with much more assistance from countries with the resources to be significant players in the war aftermath. For various reasons Bruce Rolston has ably explained on his blog, while they're unequalled at winning wars, American forces aren't as well-suited for peacekeeping jobs as those of other Western countries. So we'll need as much assistance as we can get-- not just moral support, but ground troops, so more than just the count of sympathetic countries matters.

Matt: I understand your concern; I did read, though, some British observer's note that Americans are paying far too much attention to what the Guardian and the Independent are writing, considering that they essentially represent the point of view of about 10% of the British electorate.

As to the funds to rebuild Iraq: the one factor no one likes to talk about (since it is wise not to bring up the oil issue) is that Iraq essentially has the funds for its own rebuilding. Unlike Afghanistan, it has billions in resources, waiting to be released from UN sanctions - which would be lifted after the war - on to the world market. It will not be that difficult to fund the rebuilding of Iraq and - who knows? - it might even be easier to guide the governance of Iraq if certain weasely European countries were not involved.

I think that once the dirty job of war is done there will be more than enough interested countries willing to aid Iraq's tentative baby steps to democracy. Iraq's sitting on top of a lot of oil; it would be a blow to Europe's geopolitical aspirations to let the US be the only country supporting democracy in Iraq. Like it or not, Europe will jump on board, some before the war, some after.

It is worrisome that Presidents like Aznar of Spain in fact seem to be going against popular opinion by supporting the U.S. position on Iraq in their country. This is revealing and somewhat disheartening to me.

I think 9/11 and the recent fomenting of the anti-american Franco-German Axis has changed the outlook and interest of many Americans like myself who up till now didn't really pay alot of attention to European politics. I couldn't have cared less about all the political parties in every 'Old Europe' country. I knew many of them were semi-socialist if not far left but they were allies and what they did in their country was their business and it didn't seem to affect us much. I think that's changed.

I for one, am much more interested in what goes on politically in Europe and I think more Americans are going to be interested also. This may translate into more U.S. influence in European politics. Something I think current administrations in countries like France and Germany will not welcome.

It will certainly translate into more support and communication with like minded parties such as the Progress Party in Norway. I know that now that I am aware of the Progress Party I will be looking for more information.

Eric, Aznar has his own muslim problem, the ETA.

You might want to check out iberiannotes.blogspot.com

Bjorn: I must confess I'm quite unfamiliar with the changing party demographics of the rest of the Nordic countries, outside of Finland. The Progressive Party of Carl I. Hagen sounds very interesting. I don't think there is anything like it in Sweden (certainly not in Finland), but does the party resemble the "Party of Pia" in Denmark?

"Populist" parties have a derogatory meaning to them, ever since the Populist Jorg Haider of Austria launched his somewhat wacky career riding on the crest of popular Austrian disgust with multicultural ideology. Haider, admittedly, was his own worst enemy: he could have easily parlayed his popularity into real political power that could have been a laudable counterbalance for the Social Democratic status quo, had he not shot himself in the foot with stupid remarks so often.

But why should Populist parties have derogatory meanings?

[Note to Americans: Populist parties are basically right-wing parties composed of all social classes that, among other things, oppose immigration for the sake of multicultural ideology. Populists are often accused by Social Democrats of being rabble-rousers who ride the wave of popular anger to political power. But don't confuse them with Nazis or fascists: Populists are quite devoted to democratic decency, and abhor the dark days of Europe's past.]

People who support Populist parties in Europe are tired of crime, unemployment, poor social services that are supposed to be the best in the world, high prices, low wages, lack of growth - and the opening of borders to waves of immigrants that can only make things even worse. Populism is just popular anger at the status quo which turns out to be not so great, after all. One way to direct popular dissatisfaction is to engage in the sport of America-bashing: something that Social Democrats encourage, and which Populists sometimes foolishly join in. But it's unfair to say that Populism isn't without principle: it is striving to define principle quite strongly, and sometimes Populism finds cause in "American" principles. I'm glad to see that Carl I. Hagen doesn't find "American" ideals and principles a problem, unlike the loonie Populist Jorg Haider, who was quick to engage in gratuitous anti-Americanism if it suited him.

The main problem with Populism is that it doesn't fit in nicely in that arc from left-wing to right-wing that has defined European politics since the French Revolution. Populism is being defined by powerful personalities and thinkers, - i.e. popular people - instead of political party ideology.

Pym Fortuyn in Holland was an interesting Populist figure, and he would have been a credit to Europe, had he survived. It seems to me, - based on what Bjorn has been telling us - that Carl Hagen could be the one that can define the meaning of Populism, now that Pym is gone.

In any case, this is something new in Europe. Carl I. Hagen and Norwegian politics deserve to be closely studied, because there might be new trends in Europe that are being defined today at the edges of Europe, instead of the Franco-German "heart" of Europe.

Bjorn, please feel free to correct my observations about Populism. I am, by now, an outsider looking in when it comes to European politics, and would welcome any help.

Hi all,

Markku, no Pia's DF in denmark has other elements that are closer to Pat Buchanan or Paulina Hansen in Australia than to its norwegian counterpart. the "progress party (Dk)" is probably even closer to buchanan, but nonetheless, both are pretty close. but she's tough to nail down on stuff. the best indicator of her reactions is "what they're not doing".

as for Haider, he shouldn't have flip-flopped on the EU question. He was for when most were against (1992, maastricht time), then he was (correctly) against in 1994 when the vote was held in austria. haider has said tons of stuff that's inappropriate for an austrian to say, and that detracts from important issues (immigration, static european systems, lack of opportunity, favoritism that makes any US bias seem non-exisant).

the other thing about austira is that there's the "multi-kulti" types who decry all things germanic/anglo-saxon and cheer those things "european". check out comments in DerStandard online (*.at) or die presse (same, .at) or profil.at. there you can see that there is the socialist agenda clad in the typical european "intellectualism" and "democratic" lingo. to US readers: "democratic" has a component of 1848 in it -- materialistic egalitarianism, not Liberal individualism.

finally, "populism" is a negative term in, at least, danish and austrian politics -- it was negative in dk before haider was known up there. i believe it to be so on the rest of the continent, as well. But, european ideologes such as bertel haarder in denmark (he'd sell his kids to make "europe" where he'd be powerful... oh wait, he ignores his kids anyways), are considered positive. so, anything that appeals to the "pøbel" (approx, plebians/ masses) is considered to be bad (base/ "plat"/ "spiessig"), and therefore "populist".

stuff that's clad in the language of the "intellectual" or "elite" (remember that fewer europeans have access to higher, university level education)has an appeal to social climbers. Much of the propaganda about the eu focuses on "educated vs uneducated". It's yet another way the eu tries through the media to manipulate people into voting a certain way.

remember what happened to austria when the FPOe was picked to govern (even though the coalition will probably be re-formed without sanction) a few years back. that's the elites' reaction to populism = fear.

kipis (is that right, Markku?)
drf

"When the European 8 signed their letter of support for the US ... that was interpreted in the US as support coming from those specific countries. I think that was a mistake."

It was so interpreted, and may have been a mistake in that the populace is not exactly in favor. On the other hand, even in Chirac's France the point by 60% seems to be that the US should not undertake getting rid of Hussein, but is almost 65% in favor of someone doing that. Who should do it is left to the imagination.

"part of maintaining political support from European leaders will be keeping US officials like Cheney and Rumsfeld from saying insulting things about them in public... even true insulting things."
I think it does a heck of a lot of good. Since these countries are democracies, if we want to get and keep them on our side for the long term we have to appeal to the people. That means we have to somehow break through a media even more liberally biased than America's, and through a political culture in which any mention by the natives of the (immigrant Muslim) elephant in the living room gets them branded as Fascists. The EU man-in-the-street doesn't read the NYPost. He does hear what Rumsfelt says, and some of it is going to sound like plain old common sense.

Sure the things he says are going to make people howl. The volume of the howls aren't a problem. On the contrary, they're an indication of his success, just like the howls of rage and abuse you can get out af an American liberal just by mentioning ... "Rush Limbaugh" .

"I suppose it's not the US taking a hard line that bothers me, it's failing to consider the political consequences of unnecessary trash talk."
As I argue above, it's been quite carefully considered. And the folks bothered by it are in effect our enemies, so you whouldn't expect them to like what we're doing. They're not suposed to.

"For various reasons Bruce Rolston has ably explained on his blog, while they're unequalled at winning wars, American forces aren't as well-suited for peacekeeping jobs as those of other Western countries."
Huh!?!?!?!?!?!?! The mind boggles.
Germany. Japan. South Korea. We're real good at occupying and rearranging a country when we want to be. What we don't do, not because we can't but because the American people don't like to pointlessly waste lives, is send a bunch of troops to "keep the peace" by watching massacres happen. (Sbrenica anyone?)

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/47