Danish PM triggers general election - His biggest problem: Iraq

Remember: Denmark is a member of the coalition of the willing (to our shame) and there are Danish troops in Iraq.

Conservative-leaning Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen today announced in Parliament that he has asked the Queen to call for a general election, and that the election will be held on February 8.

The Prime Minister is in a very strong position, expected to cruise to reelection, but he does have one liability: Iraq.

More below the fold:

A little background: The Prime Minister came into power with a strong election victory in Nov. 2001, ousting the sitting Social Democratic government in what amounts to a landslide by Danish standards. He did it by focusing on 3 issues:

a)    Immigrants and refugees in Denmark
b)    Law and order
c)    Fatigue with the ruling Social Democrats.

Now, in 2005, the Prime Minister has a lot of things going for him.

1)    The Social Democrats are still shell-shocked from their massive defeat in 2001, and their new leader has very high personal unfavorable.
2)    The Prime Minister has done a Blair in reverse: He's used blairite methods to challenge the existing center-left consensus - mainly by convincing Social Democratic voters that he's just as much in favor of the welfare state as they are.

However, the Prime Minister is trying to undermine the center-left consensus slowly, and most openly so in the area of foreign policy.

Traditionally, every major foreign policy decision in Denmark has been made with very broad support in Parliament - joining NATO in 1948, joining the EU in 1973, to name a few. But the Prime Minister does not subscribe to this view, and he broke away from it completely on Iraq.

The Danish involvement in Iraq was the result of a decision made by a relatively narrow majority in Parliament and against the majority of the voters, according to polls. The build-up to war was characterized by lying and manipulation and the intelligence material was flawed to say the least. Any criticism was met with the "would you rather have Saddam?" line, and to this day no one in government has admitted to any mistakes on the Iraq issue. And a lot of voters are angry about it.

Everybody with half a mind knows the whole thing was an attempt on the PM's part to break away from the Social Democratic consensus line he so despises (when not in public), and it backfired.

Despite the Prime Minister's strong position and clear lead in the polls, Iraq is his Achilles' heel. It contradicts his attempts to look "soft" and appealing to Social Democratic women. Already yesterday - the day before he announced the election - a Social Democratic youth group had posters out with the PM and his buddy George Bush hee-hawing around Iraq. They, at least, get it: The PM must be made to account for Iraq.

•  Mange tak

  What's up with the headlong rush to the right in Scandanavia anyway?  It would be nice to be able to say that the selfish anti-social war-drum politics of our time are an Anglo-American thing only; instead we see what were once the most socially responsible nations in the world indulging delightedly in a politics of hatred for less-white immigrants at home and militarism abroad.  What happened?

  ~Dancing Lauritz.

  by Dancing Larry on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:28:25 AM PDT

  •  There are two sides to every story

    Bruce Bawers among others has documented the violence and the anti-woman, anti-gay violence among Muslim immigrants. That, plus the violent murders of Fortuyn and van Gogh, have pushed people in that area over the edge.

    by Turlough on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:34:09 AM PDT

    •  Yes, that's true

      A lot of people feel so culturally removed from the immigrants' culture (many immigrants, paradoxically, were among the most conservative in their home countries) that they have a hard time relating to them. It's easy to fall into the trap of viewing people who're anti-women, anti-gay, anti-free speech etc. etc. as a threat to the welfare state.

      by MadEye on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:39:22 AM PDT

      •  I would say the behavior IS a threat

        Incidents of violence and bigotry against homosexuals in those countries has risen, and I think the countries are beginning to move more to the right on gay issues because of the constant loud, angry and fearful pressures from Muslims. They have even told their followers to burn homosexuals alive, and throw them off of rooftops.

        by Turlough on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:44:30 AM PDT

        •  Extremists among immigrants are a threat

          ...if their views spread. So far in this country that doesn't seem to happen - at least not their views on gays. It's my impression that Denmark continues to grow friendlier to gays and lesbians.

          by MadEye on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:49:51 AM PDT

          •  In Sweden

            people become less sceptical towards gays and lesbians the more neo-nazis and radical muslisms attack them. Nobody wants to be allied with right wing extremists. Unfortunately this sometimes spills over to mainstream muslims.

            There is a big chance that our Social Democratic party will face a defeat in the elections 2006, for the first time since 1991. The liberal/moderate conservatives have a very popular leader who has soften the image of the biggest right wing party (does it sound familiar?) and has repeatedly stated his support for the welfare state (it just need to be "reformed", i.e. smaller).

            However, "right wing" in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia is something like "moderate centrists" in the US. Bush would get 10% of the vote. The younger people are also much more left than the rest of the population. They distrust authoritarianism and love Michael Moore.

            by Joe B on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:43:38 AM PDT

            •  Good point

              I think you're right that extremists attacking fundemental liberties tends to create a backlash in favor of those liberties.

              by MadEye on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:52:06 AM PDT

  •  Relative right-wing

    The whole immigrants thing is a seperate issue, probably having to do with the pace of change in society. Think about how fast America changed 1960-1980. Denmark changed even more! Some people feel left behind and frustrated, and they take it out on immigrants.

    It's true that both Denmark and Norway have non-Social Democratic governments now, but in both countries the right wing parties accept the welfare state completely, wishing to fine-tune it, not to abolish it. Only by accepting the Social Democratic dogma of the active state have the right wing won favor with voters.
    

    by MadEye on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:34:43 AM PDT