Bjørn Stærk blog - Integrity and the Progress Party

PeeWee | 2005-04-10 18:38 | Link

But what are you politics precisely? It would just be interesting to know?

norvegia, norvegia | 2005-04-10 19:22 | Link

«Politics is like a dirty pond;
the Scum floats to the surface!»

Sadly, a vote for ANY of the so-called Norwegian parties is a vote for George W. Bush these days.

Must be why the guy embraces democracy so whole-heartedly...

kjell | 2005-04-10 20:53 | Link

Being an ex-member of the FrP, I regard myself as entitled to having an opinion abbout it.
Why was I a member, for eight years,in the first place?
Because of their programme, which was, and is, a good programme.(Bjørn has translated it, I believe)
The FrP also has some outstanding politicians, and not only Carl or Siv or Alvheim.
So why am I an ex?
Because of internal party politics, which make the Borgias seem like a soiree in the vicarage. The internal structure of the party is akin to democratic centralism, for those who remembers the Soviet union. Back-stabbing may not be mandatory, but it is absolutely an option.
The FrP's view on democracy has much in common with catholic priests and sex:
They regard themselves as authorities, like talking about it, and has strong opinions about it. But they don't practise it themselves.
I am now a member of another party, a party I don't wholeheartedly agree with. It is a pity.
But it is a party that allows dissent, and where I can be fairly sure that I won't be reading a party "comrade" s opinion about me in the local newspaper tomorrow.
Let's face it.
There is nothing perfect in this world, not even the party promising the best solutions. So between the perfect solution, and solutions who are not perfect, but works,I go for nr.2

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-04-10 22:20 | Link

PeeWee: But what are you politics precisely? It would just be interesting to know?

Pragmatic libertarianism, perhaps. The political philosopher I have the most respect for is Hayek, (which is why I'm writing a series about him), because I like his careful and flexible approach. What matters is what works, not what you can derive from first principles. To me Hayek foreshadows more recent research into complexity and self-organization, which is largely what this is all about, (society as a complex, self-organized network, and how to optimally exploit its resources). In short: Individual freedom is a good place to start. Free markets and free trade works well. Monopolies and and other forms of centralization do not.

Kjell: Because of internal party politics, which make the Borgias seem like a soiree in the vicarage. The internal structure of the party is akin to democratic centralism, for those who remembers the Soviet union.

Do you have any examples? I keep hearing about this, but I'm curious what it was really like.

Without knowing any details, my impression is that Hagen has used his dictatorial powers to make his party politically relevant by weeding out the nuttier elements of the party, the ones who were attracted because it was the only party that remotely agreed with their pet causes. And it worked. You can't deny that the Progress Party used to have a lot of loose cannons and village idiots in it, and that there are fewer of them now, leading to fewer media embarassment. (Exception: Karina Udnæs in Kristiansand, who compared Islam to Nazism, and wanted to consider a ban.)

So I don't believe - again without knowing details - that Hagen does this because he's a fascist, but because he wants to make his party politically relevant. But I want to hear your side of this.

PeeWee | 2005-04-10 22:27 | Link

Yes, the critique Hayek did against economic planning is absolutely brilliant. But when it comes to theories of justice/fairness, perception of poverty and "rights", he is just repeating the same mess that other libertarians have come up with.

But I have reservations about calling him a libertarian, because he was not a nigthwatcherstate fanatic like Von Mises or Robert Nozick. I really think that libertarian is a concept that should be reserved for nightwatcherstate maniacs. I think that "classical liberal" would be a much better word.

When it comes to the "dictatorship" of Carl I. Hagen, the nutcase groups that got excluded, the extreme libertarians and the outright racists did attempt a takeover of the party, so it could be considered self defence. The Labour parted acted in the same way against the communists earlier in it`s history.

Øystein, Oslo | 2005-04-10 22:32 | Link

The Progress Party certainly has had lots of good ideas during its history, and is still able to think of old issues in entirely new ways. This is mostly due to the fact that the party have never been part of the establishment, neither in the administration/civil servants, the media nor the academia. A lot of these ideas can easily be termed "liberal". The main theme overshadowing liberal in the Progress Partys rethoric and politics is however not "liberalism", but "nationalism". Their migration stance is well known. Their industrial policy main objective seems to be to keep Norwegian owned firms Norwegian, subsidising shipowners in the billions. They gave Fred. Olsen, one of Norways richest men, the hundreds of acres of the countries most valuable real estate in Norway for free. The Progress Party does not yet understand the principles of the guiding rules of the fiscal policy ("Handlingsregelen"), throwing money wherever there is a voter in sight, particularly old people.

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-04-10 23:04 | Link

Bjørn : "(Exception: Karina Udnæs in Kristiansand, who compared Islam to Nazism, and wanted to consider a ban.)"

Who besides Extremely leftwingers, and neo nazist are currently thrilled by jews getting killed and things like 9/11. Where do you find the most Hitler admirers as of this day ? People expressing sadness over the fact he never got to kill all jews ?

Not that I agree to a ban, but the comparison is not so farfetched after all, and it´s a obligation for a moslem to hate jews and all non moslems decreed by their prophet. And he hated himself most of all the jews, which he thought would be the most eager to adopt his faith. They were not and it angered him to say the least.

------------------------------------------------

As far I know Progress party and Dansk Folkeparti (Danish peoples party) got a lot in common. People will call both rightwing parties, but some DFP members call their party the true social democracy.
I would call it a REALIST party, that takes less foundation in political ideologies than practical, and if need be non PC, politics. Wanting to keep the socialdemocrat welfaremodel somewhere intact, while focusing on national and conservative values and individualism and the effeciency of capitalism. plight and duty.

kjell | 2005-04-10 23:12 | Link

It is true that the FrP does not anymore attract the looniest of the right, and good riddance it is.
As for Carl, I don't consider him a dictator. As formerly mentioned, I have a great deal of respect for many of the leaders in the party.
But on a more basic level, municipal and county, and to a certain degree national, the party is still infected with, well, persons you don't want too be associated with. This is due to a faulty party structure and culture.
I have been present at a number of conventions, and if you think the members at grassroot level influence the selection of candidates for election above municipal level, or candidates for party leadership- rethink. AKP-ml could not even compete.
Back-room decisions are the rule, not the exceptions, and they tend to be decided by "apparatshics".
The internal lack of democracy is the achilles heel of the party, and it will also in the future lead to loss of leaders and members with integrity.
That said, I still miss the party a bit, like you miss the wild and outspoken girlfriend you once loved, only to find out she had no sense of responsibility.
And I still have a lot of respect, even affection, for many former party friends.(Who still are personal friends btw)
But like so many relationships, we have grown apart.

Knut, Oslo | 2005-04-11 00:15 | Link

Kjell: But on a more basic level, municipal and county, and to a certain degree national, the party is still infected with, well, persons you don't want too be associated with. This is due to a faulty party structure and culture.

Exactly my impression too. Now, politics on the local level in Norway is full of "weirdoes" regardless of party. But the Progress Party is even worse, unfortunately

Kjell: I have been present at a number of conventions, and if you think the members at grassroot level influence the selection of candidates for election above municipal level, or candidates for party leadership- rethink. AKP-ml could not even compete.

Not too surprising, considering the weird people that keep popping up once in a while only to be excluded or lose their positions. This is not a good thing, not being able to trust your own organisation and your local politicians.

That said, I more and more realize that we need the Progress Party. They put immigration on the agenda, and the Norwegian people were finally able to raise their voice about their concerns, which had been surpressed for years. We also need a "classical liberal" (or whatever you'd want to call it) party in addition to the Conservatives who seem unable to reinvent themselves.

Norwegian kafir | 2005-04-11 00:24 | Link

I have never voted for the Progress Party before, but I will probably do so this fall. But I have no problems in understanding Kjell's point of view. Being a dissenting PP member can't be easy.

Baard | 2005-04-11 00:46 | Link

Keep on like this, Bjørn, and I will consider voting for the Progress Party rather than the Conservatives..

Yet Norvegia does an even better job in ensuring I will stick with any of the two parties in Norway which can be safely assumed to be pro-Bush (though one more discreet at being so than the other).

norvegia, norvegia | 2005-04-11 01:24 | Link

Thanks Baard,
we aim to please...

By the way, I think you're wrong that SV is very discreet about their support for George W. Bush. Read «Klar tale for fred og sånn», norvegia February 19 2005, http://norvegia.motime.com/post/419790 for a more enlightened view of our little socialist warmongers.

Geir | 2005-04-11 08:13 | Link

Dear all

The party for which you plan to vote is called the Progressive party, NOT the progress party. This is so inasmuch as progress refers to an act whereas progressive refers to a sentiment, or in this case political propensity. Further, I notice that you consistently misspell labour. This is unfortunate, but inevitable I guess (given the general flavour of this blog). However, I hope (for your sake) that you say/write aluminium and pronounce the h in herb. I realise that there is such a thing as American English, but being a puritan I want to keep the American influence out of English. As Frp voters I am sure you will agree since after all it is, in principle at least, the same as limiting the number of immigrants and especially muslims. These are the worst people on earth, terrorist in waiting the lot of them. May our next PM be Carly and may Eli drive our country as she drives cars. Then we are surely destined for great things.

kjell | 2005-04-11 12:27 | Link

One factor that even more than the personal charisma of Carl has contributed to the growth and popularity of the FrP in Norway is the "I told you so" factor.

The FrP has been good at pointing out politically inconvenient facts, and sometimes proposed solutions that has been shamelessly copied by other actors(including the left wing) in recent years.

They are very good at telling the emperor that he is naked.

But far too often they propose populistical solutions, often copyed from the left, in order too gain short-term popularity.

This is a result of the party's culture, where you find a curious mix of intellectually endowed people with integrity, bygdetullinger(some one else can explain to non-norwegian readers), people who are more honest than you and I, and outright crooks.

However the party itself is neither racist nor fascist(though there are individuals in the party who are).

Not being given responsibility at higher levels than municipies it will also in the future be a populist party. Maybe real responsibility will cure the defects of the party, and bring them back to earth.
Treating them as lepers only gives them a feeling of martyrship, and support among electors.

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-04-11 15:44 | Link

Populism and realism, and using core values from social democrats over conservatives to some element of neo liberal capitalism. Then the uniqueness of nationalism, shared mostly only with conservatives, that yet are more leftleaning in this issue mostly. + highlighted focus on immigrant politics, Elderly people, tougher on crime more or less unique fot them.

Generally speaking about the Danish counterpart, but it appears the similarities between Norwegian and Danish politics by far excede the difference.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-04-11 19:03 | Link

PeeWee: But I have reservations about calling him a libertarian, because he was not a nigthwatcherstate fanatic like Von Mises or Robert Nozick.

I agree, and I wouldn't call myself a libertarian either. Liberal is a better label, without the "classical" (which is only meaningful in certain far-away countries that have unilaterally decided to redefine "liberal").

Thomas Bolding Hansen: As far I know Progress party and Dansk Folkeparti (Danish peoples party) got a lot in common.

Yes, but also some differences. The Danish People's Party strikes me as more nationalist and culturally conservative, the Progress Party as more secular and culturally liberal. They too talk about Christian values as our cultural foundation, though, (which is why they recently helped preserve the Norwegian blasphemy law.)

Geir: The party for which you plan to vote is called the Progressive party, NOT the progress party.

Actually, Google leans slight in favor of Progress Party, not the Progressive Party.

Kjell: The FrP has been good at pointing out politically inconvenient facts, and sometimes proposed solutions that has been shamelessly copied by other actors(including the left wing) in recent years.

Yeah, and that's a good thing. Like I wrote, political success is to have your ideas adopted by more than one party.

bygdetullinger(some one else can explain to non-norwegian readers)

Best translation: Village idiots.

Baard | 2005-04-12 09:47 | Link

Naturally you aim to please, Norvegia - good socialists know what is best for the rest of us.

Interesting article also, amusing to learn that the Socialist Left leader finally admits Afghanistan is a better place after the US and allies involved themselves. Perhaps she can come to terms with an Iraq not ruled by the Baath regime also?

Yet even more amusing was Kristin Halvorsen's thorough assessment of why the Norwegian forces in Afghanistan are superioer to forces from other countries. After all, the Norwegians take time to chat with the local townsfolk while the Americans speed through their villages - even without removing their sunglasses!

Harald, Oslo | 2005-04-12 15:59 | Link

I don't think Halvorsen ever will admit that the war was justified. But all kind of flip-flopping around the issue is to be expected.

I think that in her mind there's an image of the norwegian NATO soldiers as part of a great big camping trip with guns. Her observation is propably correct the NATO force is the peace force. The americans haven't got any troops uner NATO command as far as i know, so they're part of Enduring Freedom, which is the part of the camping trip that have to use their guns, and ofcourse for the same reason won't be as popular with the locals, however they are needed. And IIRC norwegian infantry have been part of Enduring Freedom and are going to be part of it again this summer.

This is ofcourse the break-down in thinking of Halvorsen, the two operations are ofcourse symbiotic, she should know as well as anyone that if Enduring Freedom stopped chasing islamic militants, they would come back to chase the NATO peace force. And then they would have to stop beeing nice and start protecting themselves.

But her attitude makes for great posturing with the norwegian media.

1. norewgians are good and only want peace
2. americans are warmongers and only want war
(...)
4. This is completly off topic, and i surrender now.

Geir, England | 2005-04-12 17:19 | Link

Following your advise, I googled for Progress party. And while there ARE sites referring to Frp as the progress party, I amintain that the correct translation nevertheless is the progressive party, after all we are not talking about an innovative production process here are we? Well, ok one may analyse the political process as a technology, but let's not overstretch the analogy shall we.

Now, as for voting for the bastards seems a bit extraordinary to me. You argue that they repsent the most liberal party in our gloryous, almost 100 year old country. This seems to me like a man desperate to justify your sentiment. I cannot agree, it seems to me as if the most liberal party in Norway going on the purely SECULAR argument is surely Venstre, or for the lingually impaired the democrats. Now before you go blogomanic on me, I am aware thet there exists another party called the democrats in Norway, but Jan Simonsen is barely human and as for J-motherfucking-diva, well what can you say really? So, I choose to translate Venstre as the democrats.

And while I think it's a good thing to have Frp in opposition, I really hope they do not get voted in as government or any part thereof.

Their economic policy is a shambles, and since this is what matters to me I just cannot and will not vote for them. You lot, however, may do as you wish, it is after all, a free country.

It is the same situation here in britain, which you may or may not know is currently undergoing an election campaign. The conservatives and UKIP seem to be in for relatively good results, very unfortunate I think. Oh, and finally, being conservative is not a neccessary condition for being liberal. Not even liberitarian in fact.

I want Norwegian Labour and the Conservatives to join forces. Nothing separating them anymore really (banter doesn't count). Stem rett, velg en fremtid for oss (de UNDER 65) stem Hoyre

Baard | 2005-04-12 22:37 | Link

Whereas the union with Sweden was ended a hundred years back (still-existing political parties were founded well before this), and the Norwegian constitution "only" dates back to 1814, it is rather odd to say Norway is only 100 years old. The country was pretty much around a millennium ago also. As was Germany before 1990, and 1949.

Perhaps the marginal Venstre would score more on the liberal scale than the Progress Party, but who cares about Venstre once the party is out of government?

Tor E. Bjørstad, Trondheim | 2005-04-13 12:40 | Link

Geir:

it seems to me as if the most liberal party in Norway going on the purely SECULAR argument is surely Venstre, or for the lingually impaired the democrats.

Venstre officially calls itself "the Liberal Party of Norway". The current political program is subject to revision the coming weekend, but may be interesting reading for those who wish to judge whether the party does live up to its name.

Bjørn:

The problem with many objectivists and libertarians is that they see their vision as an all-or-nothing package that must be championed in full by a party of ideological purists. If a major party with the power to actually influence economic policy doesn't fully adopt their ideas, they transfer their support to a party that will, even if it has no chance of influencing anyone.

The liberal dilemma in Norway, in my eyes, is as follows: Venstre is the only major party that represents an ideologically liberal purity, combined with a sense of pragmatism that has led it into government twice since 1997, where it can work for liberal causes in a direct fashion. Unfortunately, Venstre has also been a very marginal party in the political landscape for the last 30 years or so, as their pragmatic liberalism does not seem to be connecting well with the voters. Although it is wonderful to see liberal policies being implemented, it is a major question who will put them on the agenda if Venstre does not succeed in the coming parliamentary elections. Perhaps FrP has a solid liberal fundament behind their aggressive populist pandering to various causes, as Bjørn claims. I am not convinced of this.

Bjørn:

Political success is achieved by not by getting one party to adopt all your ideas, but by getting all the parties to adopt individual ideas.

[...]

So a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for whatever they and the Christian People's Party can agree on - a vote for Jan Petersen is a vote for Kjell Magne Bondevik.

I agree with the first sentiment; I am not sure what you are trying to say with the last. It would seem that you are in a sense contradicting yourself, or possibly "misunderestimating" where the balance of power lies in the current government (or just trying to make a bombastic rhetoric point). All the same, this is a gross oversimplification, both because the Christian Conservatives is paying a lot of internal leverage for Bondevik's figurehead position, and because the Venstre is shifting the power balance subtly: Towards the Conservatives and away from the Christian Democrats on economic policy and in cases regarding the Christian Democrats' regressive conservatism, but also in the opposite direction on social matters.

Baard:

Perhaps the marginal Venstre would score more on the liberal scale than the Progress Party, but who cares about Venstre once the party is out of government?

If Venstre does not get any representatives in parliament come the election in September, then nobody will. Which would be a pity. Not only because it would be a catastrophe for Venstre, but because it would spell the end of the current Centre-Right government. If the special interest "dream team" coalition between the peasant party, organized labour and rabid ideological socialist movement comes to power, I'm bloody well giving up politics and leaving the country forever.

Nevertheless, I think Venstre is going to make a very good election. This is for many reasons, both because of the vacuum created in the political centrum by the dramatic shift leftwards by Labour, because the "left alternative" will peak too early, and because Venstre traditionally captures a large proportion of swing voters in the final run-up to the election. In a sense, the most dangerous thing that may happen is that the party is written off by the media establishment prior to the election. In 2001, only about 2000 votes separated Venstre from 2 and 6-7 parliamentary representatives. In 2005, with a government that is doing a reasonably good job and an economy that's never been better, there's no reason to write off the current coalition quite yet.

Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2005-04-14 16:25 | Link

I'd argue that linguistically, the correct translation for Fremskrittspartiet is either the hyper-literal "The Party of Progress" or "The Progression Party." Hardly elegant.

The "Progress Party" properly covers the meaning. "The Progressive Party" as well, even though it uses an adjective and the Norwegian construct doesn't have one.

My reason for not voting Frp is that the party is too tolerant to near-racist rhetoric from its officials.

Btw: Thanks for information about Venstre, Tor. I'll seriously consider it. Really!

kjell | 2005-04-14 16:56 | Link

I have never met a venstre-mann I didn't like. They seem to be nicer than just anybody else.
If the future was bright and sunny, I'd vote for them any day.
Unfortunately, in real life, being nice isn't enough.
When societies faces crises, and our society like any other will someday in the future, I'd rather have leadership that is capable of some ruthless thinking and acting.
Nice guys unfortunately finishes last.

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-04-14 21:23 | Link

Yes most lefties are nice people, Often very very nice, actually that is their exact problem.

Welcome immigrants, come to our bossom and we will nurture you.

Ut oh, did we invite those moslems ?

Spend billions on the third world, preferable without a plan that stretch any further than this day, ( often enriching corrupt regimes - but the right tends to do the same to some extent when they are not making good deals for business friends )

Hate war, and like ugliness and always want to save money on the military.

Let´s put flowers in the gunbarrels and just live in a peaceful world plz, shall we ???????????????????? NO! stop attacking me plz, I beg you, why you doing this ????????????

They want to do all kinds of good for people, invest a lot of money in better schools, hospitals, Psychology sessions for people which got fired, you name it. Big spending, no problems, just look at all those rich people and companies paying so little tax.

Hey why you leave all you Vanderbilts ? the party just started, you can´t leave now plz, who is going to pay the bill now ?

Yea here we go again:

We got a deficit ? how come ? I don´t understand, we made this country the best to live in, in the world ? What ? We can´t afford paying our debt, how come ? Our GNP has dropped ? I don´t understand we done everything to take care of our people, doesn´t that count ?

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-04-14 21:55 | Link

"Vote for Norway and Norwegians, not the dilution of an ethnically secure Norway."
Jan Haugland link, the guy he called rascist.

You do talk about ethnic groups don´t you =?

Eg. Bosnia consist of 3 different ethnic groups.

I think my culture is superior to that of the moslems, now I am rascist, and so are moslems because they think their culture are superior to ours.

Furthermore my family can be traced back 1200 th century here in Denmark, and Im proud of it!

Omg I am really a rascist.

Not really, but still some cultures have cultivated more cultural milestones than others.

I smell the earth here better than others, I consider myself closer to the wikings than others, I feel Danish to my bone, I know that what my country went through, the long red line of history, played a great part, in what I am.

But still I know that everyone is also an individual.

I can have more in common with a man from the other side of the globe than a random native Dane.
A nigger can be double as smart as a Dane.

Culture and ethnic groups plays a great part but doesn´t say it all.

But not all are ready to call islam a religion of peace when it is not, or to look away from the fact that Somalians are the cultural group most involved in violent and rape crime per capita + the most unemployed group of all.

Not as many as are ready to call people rascists when they are not!

ride, ride my hobbyhorse.

Thomas | 2005-04-15 00:25 | Link

I have a problem with Thommesen of Venstre. He preach about the blessings of multiculture while living in one of the best neighboorhoods. Then he take these study trips to immigrant shop owners and post for pictures.

He preach, but he doesnt live it.

Thomas | 2005-04-15 00:31 | Link

And for mr. Bolding Hansen

Our word neger doesnt translate to the n word you used, I guess it was just a mistake...

kjell | 2005-04-15 00:42 | Link

I don't have that problem with mr. Thommesen. He is after all his mothers son. His mom, the late Annette Thommesen was one of the first, and most loud-mouthed multi-cultis in Norway. Being French, but having adapted herself to Norway(her Norwegian was better than that of many Norwegians) she might even have been entitled to. I am not multi-culti myself, but having listened to the most obnoxious sorts of monoculturalists here in Norway, I can at least understand her.
The Venstre, after all, are and regard themselves as non-socialists.
They are nice guys, and I would trust them with my wallet. But I will not trust them in serious matters like national security, crime and immigration.

Thomas | 2005-04-15 01:58 | Link

I would vote for danish peoples party if I lived in Denmark. I vote for progress party because it is the closest to having nationalist ideas without being idiots like Demokratene or falling for extreme nationalist ideas. So I have different reasons for my vote.

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-04-15 16:42 | Link

personally I would call myself a internationalist just not the kind putting a fat line over the nationalist part and thinks like: " what is our culture, do we have one ?" fine enough question if it wasn´t because he straight after considering sexdrixe, beers, sausages, can´t think of much more and starts to think he has to be solely INTER tapping from the outside to be anything.

dlf | 2005-04-16 03:47 | Link

Stem DLF!

Torkill Bruland | 2005-04-16 16:31 | Link

An even better translation of bygdetullinger is rural nitwits.

I agree with Bjørns view. Hagen has been determined to and managed to build up a strong party organization, and to move his party into the mainstream of Norwegian politics. Under his leadership Frp has played and increasingly important role in the Politics of Norway. The idea of the Oslo Progress Party Youth to use the American Libertarian Party as a model for The Progress Party, was a bad idea. The price of purity is impotency.

Rune | 2005-04-16 18:51 | Link

I agree with Bjørn, voting Progress Party is the only real option for libertarian leaning righwingers in Norway.

Let's face it:

The "Conservative" party is really just a lighter version of a classic European social democratic dogma. To call it "right" is an insult to anyone on the right.

Venstre is a joke, can be summed up as socialism with right to privacy. If they loose all seats in next elextion, good riddance. As the name should suggest, this party is not "Right". Nor is it anything like its more sensible Danish counterpart.

DLF/Fridemokratene are ideologically pure, but will never get into Stortinget. And please don't give me this crap :"Well, if all who thought like you voted for us, we would win". Non-sense. There are less than 1% pure libertarians in Norway, and they alone will never win a single seat.

Demokratene are a one-issue party, and although this party has potential to win seats (unlike DLF/Fridemokratene), it will never be a strong and broad voice of the Right.

The only choice that remains is the Progress Party. Although far from perfect, it has always been a refuge for Norwegian rightwingers of all kinds. And it really has been very effective and influential on Norwegian politics since its inception in the 70s.

Knut, Oslo | 2005-04-16 19:08 | Link

Yet, many of the right or center-right minded people in Norway, have almost ruled out the Progress Party. Part of the reason is, as mentioned many times, the village idiots. They have skilled and professional politicians at the top level. But they are so few that with a good election, some of the obvious nutcases will be elected to Stortinget (parliament).

As for the local elections, let me put it this way: I would have given every other center, center left or right party my voice long before the Progress Party. There has been numerous scandals including alcohol, rape, pyramid schemes etc etc

So, what am I left with for the upcoming elections for Stortinget? Well, at least here the Progress Party is an alternative. But I imagine that I will choose either the-wellmeaning-but-naive Venstre, or the conservative-but-naive Conservatives.

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-04-16 20:27 | Link

How about høyre ?

Anyways how is their stand on immigration now at days ? When I met their Youth organizations representatives some 14 years ago they were quite political correct as to this issue, but ofcourse most were, including myself.

Tor E. Bjørstad, Trondheim | 2005-04-17 17:45 | Link

kjell writes:

I have never met a venstre-mann I didn't like. They seem to be nicer than just anybody else. If the future was bright and sunny, I'd vote for them any day. Unfortunately, in real life, being nice isn't enough.

There is a certain truth in this. The section in the election programme on foreign policy is horribly vague, and Mr. Dørum, although a very nice guy, is not doing a very good job as Minister of Justice. Much like Bjørn said about FrP, I would not want Venstre to implement all their ideas by themselves either. (Although I do note that this does not appear to be an imminent danger.)

My choice of Venstre is, as commented on earlier, rooted in my personal values and ideology. But it is also based on my overall view of the political landscape in Norway today, and how I can get the most leverage for my views. Foreign policy is pretty much Høyre's exclusive domain in the current government, and I doubt a Høyre/FrP coalition would be very different; at best FrP could be a somewhat stronger a corrective when Høyre misses the target. But in this setting, foreign policy becomes an very unimportant election issue, since no matter which party on the centre-right I vote for, it will be Høyre's foreign policy that will dominate. Public opinion won't be going anywhere sensible unless something truly dramatic occurs (touch wood), and Høyre will be certainly not be inclined to go anywhere until the public shifts.

In this setting, Venstre makes a lot more sense than they would do in isolation. I'll cast my vote where I think it will have the most effect for causes I support. Meanwhile, I will work to improve what I find lacking in Venstre through debate, both within and without. A principled liberal approach to 'bright and sunny' issues such as flat tax, freer markets, separation of church and state, pension and social reform, small entrepreneurship, increased local democracy, less central bureaucracy, environmental policy, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope and nice red coats appears to me to be a good platform to work from until the day I become rich, famous and elected world dictator for life.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2005-04-18 11:54 | Link

"Noone outside the libertarian movement has heard from them since".

I have. I have. Wuhu.

Øyvind

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-14 04:07 | Link

Ok, having read all that, I'm left still wondering. Last time, I voted Progress Party. However, my lack of norwegian skills kept me from truly analyzing the political landscape like I should have. I like Bjørn's analysis of the FrP, and based on that, I could vote that way again. However, I like Tor's description of Venstre as well.

Knowing me from my postings here, how do you inside Norway folks think I should vote? My brother Jarl will also vote I think, so here's your chance to influence 2 votes.

A bit more background on my philosophy: Christian Libertarian, pro-life, family values, flat tax, anti socialism, anti racism, anti bigotry (best friend is gay), anti-secular bigotry, pro norwegian culture, pro American, pro education (cousins are norwegian teachers).

mosie | 2005-08-16 15:52 | Link

> So that's my thinking at the moment. Not impressed with their populist rhetorics, don't much like their politicians (beyond respect for what they've accomplished), just think they're the best candidate for a long-term investment in liberalism.

I guess this ad made it easier for ya! :D
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/44/440/440336/frp1.jpg

chat | 2006-02-05 19:33 | Link

http://www.therealitycheck.net/snowreport1/messages/20681.shtml clothinggamessickening