The simple response strategies

How one examines this, is as positive as it relates to the latter means, as it is boring with populist single-issue parties – especially when they may influence the balance of political power. At the same time, the Sweden Democrats should not be portrayed as more extreme and unique than they really are. Ultimately, it is the same kind of party as The Left Party. That is, one that gets its support primarily from people who feel an aversion for society, or who themselves have experienced some sort of deterioration in their lives. In both cases, they appeal to the discomfort associated with two factors in the development of late capitalism: increasing globalisation and the increasing speed with which everything is changing around us.

One may choose to be ironic about this, but nonetheless, there is reason to take such grievances seriously. Liberal society’s tendency to see the value of resolution and self-realisation as today’s ultimate goal and purpose seems, for various reasons, not relevant to all people. Many yearn for other kinds of values, which are more difficult to generate in capitalist society: security, connection, participation in something larger, the opportunity to live in relationships characterised by mutual responsibility and consideration – both privately and in professional life. When the established centre parties are not able to grasp the dissatisfaction that global developments are fuelling, it creates space and fertile ground for fringe groups to deliver simple answers: it is the fault of capitalists and the upper-class that we are experiencing this insecurity. Or: it is the fault of immigrants and Muslims that we experience such insecurity.

The paradox in this context is, of course, that the Islamists, who are rightly portrayed by the Sweden Democrats as a threat to the open, liberal society, are driven by basically the same kind of discontent as the Sweden Democrats, when it comes to liberal society’s fundamental desire for constant renewal and tendency to abandon and dismantle everything that breathes tradition and continuity. But while the Islamists, in their critique of the modern world, paint a future utopia based on their image of the Middle Ages, the Sweden Democrats have chosen to locate their planned kingdom of fortune at the intersection of the late 1800s Swedish national romanticism and Astrid Lindgren’s Noisy Village.

To a great extent, the media’s strategy has been to ignore the large groups of voters who channel their discontent with the liberal society by seeking populist and simple explanations. Currently, there is a tendency to reject any attempt at a serious and informed argument, responding, for instance, to the Sweden Democrats. We believe it will ultimately benefit such grievances, if we pay attention to the issues that the populist movements highlight.

Personally, I believe that it is a counterproductive tactic to lecture those who have legitimate concerns about the disadvantages of globalisation about multiculturalism’s obvious advantages. Or by – such as can be seen recently in the Swedish media – covering every move made by the Sweden Democrats with disgust and an intensity bordering on obsession. Neither does it advance the debate to say that those who want to debate with the Sweden Democrats “legitimise racism”.

On the contrary, such demonisation of the party’s voters, which is now happening in many parts of the media, may benefit the Sweden Democrats, and could cause the party to win sympathy through its self-image as a collection of truth-telling martyrs.

What is needed instead is to take seriously the discontent with global capitalism that threatens the nationally based welfare state. And that is the basis of a contemporary analysis that does not defend itself by citing either the complexity of contemporary events, or the historical uniqueness of the situation we are in (and which does not, in any given situation, need to resort to facile analogies to 1930s Europe), formulating non-populist alternatives within the framework of the alloy between conservatism and liberalism, which is itself the core of Enlightenment thought.