Connect with us


Dutch politics stops minding its language




AMSTERDAM – Prime Minister Mark Rutte is imitating the brash rhetorical design of opponent Geert Wilders because attempts to fight the development of his far-right party previous to a March election.

Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) has consistently been topping polls, followed by Rutte’s conservative-liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). Rutte’s strategy so far is aimed squarely at Wilders since the main competition, casting the election like a choice between the prime minister or maybe the PVV.

Rutte’s blunt newspaper ad?last week – telling anybody who doesn’t just like the Netherlands to go away – underlines the way the introduction of Wilders’ populist style has upended a tradition of calm and lawyerly Dutch political rhetoric.

Almost invariably, once the rhetorical gloves go is where politicians try the defining topic within the election campaign: immigration, particularly Muslim immigration.

Here is usually a roundup of precisely how brash words conquered the Dutch political mainstream.

‘Backward culture’

Before Wilders, there was clearly Pim Fortuyn, an openly gay populist who rode a wave of resentment toward Muslims inside wake with the 9/11 attacks for the United States and described Islam as being a “backward culture.”?He was assassinated in 2002 by way of a radical environmental activist who accused Fortuyn of scapegoating marginal groups, inside of a murder that shocked holland.

‘Head rag tax’

Wilders’ capability to get free publicity by developing headlines along with language have been key to his party’s rise. One moment that entered Dutch political lore was while he calmly proposed to parliament introducing a “kopvoddentaks,”?or “head rag tax”.

‘Doe eens normaal’

“I keep in mind that people think: should you reject our country fundamentally, I’d rather look at you go. We’ve a similar feeling. Act normal or leave,” Rutte wrote in their newspaper advert.

    His words were an evident echo of the comment by Wilders to him last year – “doe eens normaal, man” – a slangy remark that roughly translates as “act normal, man” and became instantly notorious as a break with parliament’s traditional etiquette.

    “Scornful laughter” was the response to Wilders’ words in those days, noted Joost de Vries within the Volkskrant newspaper. “Six years later, the VVD has elevated a similar words into a slogan.”

    ‘Minder minder minder!’

    The chant, “fewer, fewer, fewer!” was exactly what a crowd of supporters called returning to Wilders in 2014 while he asked them whether wanted more Moroccans inside Netherlands, or fewer. It landed him in court on trial for hate speech, which Wilders took as being an possiblity to cast himself being a defender of free expression including a victim of the politically motivated trial. He was found guilty of incitement and inspiring discrimination but weren’t given a lack of success.

    ‘Pleur op’

    Rutte opened the political season which has a television interview where he explained antisocial youths of Turkish background should “pleur op” or “piss off” to Turkey. It’s actually a somewhat old-fashioned sounding phrase discussing pleurisy, in the Dutch tradition of illness-themed curses, and it had clear echoes of Wilders’ rhetoric.

    “Everybody knows immediately this is often Wilders’ style … it’s almost a dialect word, slightly archaic,” said Henk te Velde, a professor of Dutch history at Leiden University who studies political language. “This is completely new, that the mainstream party is copying Wilders’ rhetoric.”

    In the exact same television interview in September, Rutte declined to rule out doing coalition with Wilders, a posture he altered this month when he said there seemed to be “zero” possibility of a real deal. Opinion polls indicate that when both generally cooperate, it depends five parties and up may have to coalesce to attain the 76 seats needed for a majority.

    The risk, as outlined by Te Velde, is that Rutte may strengthen Wilders by setting him up as the chief opposition, understanding that copying him could reinforce an impression that he is a politician without strong convictions of his.

    “People ask: who is the real Rutte, and what does he really think?” Te Velde said. “He’s increasing the impression he has no his very own ideas, understanding that he isn’t for being trusted, because he’s changing day-to-day.”

    Original icons by Madebyoliver, Pixel Buddha?and Freepik from are licensed by CC 3.0 BY

    Continue Reading
    Click to comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment Login

    Leave a Reply


    Black caucus chairman pushes to censure Trump over ‘shithole’ remark





    Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Cedric Richmond on Thursday introduced a solution to censure President Donald Trump over what he contends would be the president\’s racist rhetoric referring to El Salvador, Haiti and African nations as \”shithole countries.\”

    The resolution – who has much more than 130 co-sponsors, including House Democratic leaders – calls over the House to publicly state its support for any nations Trump disparaged, censure and condemn the president for his statements, and demand he retract his comments and apologize.

    Story Continued Below

    At a news conference announcing the resolution alongside House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) as well as other Democrats, Richmond (D-La.) said Trump\’s controversial comments \”should have not been made\” and \”were factually inaccurate.\”

    Richmond conceded, however, the resolution isn\’t \”privileged,\” meaning House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) might need to say yes to carry it in order with the chamber to keep a vote. It\’s almost certain Ryan will not likely do this.

    \”If he doesn\’t, we then will be at other ways to just make a vote on there,\” Richmond told reporters. \”But the facts from the matter is definitely the speaker should bring it up. In the event that he doesn\’t, establishing is enabling and recurring to allow obama to perpetuate this hateful rhetoric, as well as at certain point – whether you agree or disagree – I believe this is the speaker\’s obligation to safeguard the dignity of the property.\”

    If Ryan will not allow a vote, Richmond said he among others would hunt for "creative" strategies to force one.

    Like most Republican leaders, Ryan hasn\’t said much for the president\’s reported comments, though he did acknowledge the other day that they are \”very unfortunate\” and \”unhelpful.\” For Richmond, however, that wasn\’t enough.

    \”It\’s unfortunate when I miss my bus. Or it\’s unfortunate in the event the airlines lose my luggage,\” he was quoted saying. \”But when the president of america decides to Africa, Haiti and El Salvador which he used, which isn\’t unfortunate. That is wrong. That\’s disgusting. That is definitely hurtful. There are a variety of words because of it, but unfortunate\’s undertake and don\’t.\”

    Continue Reading


    Ryan's 2017 fundraising haul: $44 million





    House Speaker Paul Ryan raised more than $44 million in 2017, an off-year record to get a House leader – a financial haul Republicans hope will shore up vulnerable GOP members in what\’s shaping up to often be a tough midterm cycle for Republicans.

    In a final quarter, Ryan raised $4.8 million, his political operation will announce Thursday – down from $6.7 million during the third quarter.

    Story Continued Below

    The infusion of greenbacks is a follower of Republicans passed a tax reform law last December, which GOP members said would drive support among voters and donors. But also in 2018, Republicans must defend its 24-seat majority spanning a broad battlefield, while President Donald Trump\’s approval ratings stay in the bottom 40s and Democrats hold a broad bring success the generic ballot. Nearly 24 retirements, including California Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa latest research by, will force Republicans to invest more heavily to protect these open seats.

    In 2017, Ryan transferred $32 million to the National Republican Campaign Committee, which announced a unique record-breaking off-year total with $85 million raised in the last year. Ryan also transferred $1.7 million on to GOP members, as well as hosting 49 fundraisers for members.

    "This eye-popping number is usually a testament to Speaker Ryan, House Republicans, as well as the agenda them to led your strugle on in 2017," said Kevin Seifert, executive director of Team Ryan, the speaker\’s fundraising committee.

    Continue Reading


    Bannon won't testify again on Russia Thursday





    Former White House adviser Steve Bannon declined House Russia investigators\’ request to go back for a second interview Thursday, telling lawmakers through his lawyer their own obtain him to go back just 2 days after his first appearance was "unreasonable."

    "The Committee\’s subpoena provides require Mr. Bannon\’s appearance for that second deposition [Thursday] at 2pm. That may be plainly insufficient time for me to undertake precisely what the Committee has asked," Bannon\’s attorney William Burck wrote within a Wednesday letter to store intelligence committee leaders obtained by POLITICO.

    Story Continued Below

    Instead, Burck told committee leaders that the former senior aide to President Donald Trump would return after reaching an accommodation when using the White House to make sure his testimony doesn\’t violate executive privilege.

    On Tuesday, Bannon-citing instructions from your Trump administration-refused to reply Republican and Democrats\’ questions on his amount of the White House, the post-election transition team and in some cases about his conversations with the president after he was fired from his post in August. His stonewalling infuriated persons in both parties, who subpoenaed him immediately. But despite the subpoena, Bannon declined to reply to their questions.

    Burck\’s letter told the committee\’s top Russia investigators, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), that Bannon remains ready to answer the committee\’s questions-but after striking an understanding together with the White House while on an acceptable scope of questioning.

    "There isn\’t any conceivable solution to talk to the White House Mr. Bannon\’s time using the transition and also the White House, obtain their thoughts about the knowledge he previously provide, communicate those views back to the Committee, relay the Committee\’s views time for the White House, and then negotiate or facilitate a binding agreement amongst the Committee along with the White House from the time allotted by the Committee\’s subpoena," Burck wrote.

    Committee members at the moment are weighing calling hold Bannon in contempt of Congress for avoiding their questions. They\’ve noted that White House lawyers haven\’t formally invoked executive privilege-they just have suggested that Bannon\’s testimony might implicate it.

    White House officials have argued that it is customary for Congress to coordinate the scope of the questions with current and former officials to stop violating privileged information.

    But GOP and Democratic lawmakers have questioned this argument, suggesting they see no reasonable interpretation of executive privilege that might preclude Bannon from discussing his time over the transition team, that is before Trump was president.

    Burck indicated that the committee didn\’t have use of White House and transition documents that has to be relevant precursors to the questions for Bannon and suggested lawmakers and Bannon would require time for them to produce them and review them before Bannon\’s next interview.

    "There are lots of lawyers over the Committee plus the Staff, and i also could well be surprised as long as they believed it becomes anything in addition to unprofessional even unethical should be expected to depose a witness that has did not have possibility for review relevant documents," he said.

    Burck also indicated a potential disconnect between committee staff and lawmakers. He revealed that he had informed the employees of the committee, chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the White House "may not permit Mr. Bannon to discuss his in time the transition and the White House unless an accommodation was agreed between your Committee plus the White House."

    "Staff raised no objection to the telltale restrictions in any of such conversations," he said. "The main objection came yesterday within the Members who appear not to have been informed by Staff about our prior conversations."

    Continue Reading


    Copyright © 2019