You should have a forgiving attitude to the voters. Sometimes they do not know what they are voting on.
Only a minority of those who fifteen years ago took June to the european Parliament knew that they voted for a party that wanted to stay in the EU. Likewise learn there was a minority of People's constituents in språkkravsvalet 2002, who realized that FP's policy, if implemented, would increase the immigration to Sweden.
How many of those who now embrace the Christian democrats know what the party wants?
the Question is not rhetorical. It is motivated by what we know about the new voters, which more than tripled the party's poll since the summer. These voters will, to a large extent from the Conservatives högerflank, in some cases, after to have gone the way via The sweden democrats.
treading new paths. As late as five, six years ago there were no measurable flows between the KD and SD.
Above all, it is the voters that have come to define the picture of the new right. Invandringsskeptiker but not racist. Någonstansare but not Swexitörer. Conservative but not reactionary. It is the new bourgeois idédebattens social base.
And now they have landed in borgerlighetens left wing. No other bourgeois party advocate equal high taxes, as high contributions, and as much state intervention as the Christian democrats. Is this what the disgruntled ex-conservatives want? United states [edit, but with a conservative face?
Maybe not. Both the supporters as critics seem to agree that economics does not play any major role for Their success. It is ”values” or ”kulturkrig” lift KD. Less politicised explanations lands inevitably in trivia: medielogik, everyone likes a winner, agile bourgeois voters.
the dramaturgical supporting the explanation that the crisis is changed to success, however, is difficult to find. This is no Annie Lööf, who goes through purgatory in order to defend controversial ideas. Here, there is no osentimental review of the mistakes of the past, like the New Moderates. Instead, it is the same profile questions as before, with the same sakpolitiska content. Care, family, elderly. Sure it has the Ebba Busch Thor a different focus than, Göran Hägglund, but it is a shift from Flanders to Marge Simpson, not to Mr. Burns.
Nevertheless, the party has long värjt more viable labels. It was hard inside to even call themselves bourgeois. Many dislike still the label right.
the Paradox is, however, obvious. The dream of a powerful traditional right – beyond all the gal/tan-nonsense – has led to a boost for a party that never really felt at home on the left-högerskalan.
In the two terms were considered to KD's role in the policy will be to secure a civil valvinst. With the party outside of the latch was the Alliance smoked. So the justification for short-term votes, but not a party's long-term existence.
its lojalaste member can finally exist for their own sake.
the Question is what to use the success to the.
It belongs to the thing that the Christian democrats have never been a particularly ideological party. Always leading with, of course. However, attempts to package the ideas in terms of ”christian democracy” or ”american countries” have fallen flat. Nevertheless, the party has long värjt more viable labels. It was hard inside to even call themselves bourgeois. Many dislike still the label right. And it is only the youngest generations in the youth league, who started to call themselves conservative.
This at the same time as just the border between liberalism and conservatism is starting to become the most mined in the Swedish debate.
strange bird in Swedish politics. No party has bejakat the unreservedly since the Liberals in the 1960s. In the Conservatives balanced the fragile against liberalism, in The sweden democrats is a supplement to nationalism. In both cases, play it conservative idégodset a subordinate role and is justified on the basis of the ideas of liberty and national cohesion. The final results will therefore be essentially different in the different parties.
What would a conservatism in the economist and bottling mean?
It would be to start with land very far from the caricature of a Swedish Trump-right that the party's opponents like to subscribe. Rather, it is about the values that the christian democrats have always stood for. They are not much different than what usually distinguishes the conservative parties in Europe. The family before the individual. Society before the state. Morale ahead of the market. The nation before the world. Security before freedom. Experience prior to the formation.
always has been among a fairly large segment of the Swedish electorate. But that rarely been politically useful.
Now they are once again modern. Then it does matter what they are called. The christian democrats can dig further where they always have been. The voters probably know what they are doing.