for years it has been talked about how Kristin Clemet and Civita prepared the ground for a new civic cooperation and the current majority rule through to collect ungdomspolitikere to seminars and social meetings.
It was first and foremost seen as a wily strategic grip; a form of socialization which broke down the prejudice between the younger generations who had long knuffet and fight in the political duck pond. Knowledge and friendship are priceless when small sentrumspartier is on the teeter-totter and must be won over again and again. Civita gathered the young Right-more and Better-ere, Left and Right people: It gave noticeable results during a rødgrønn majority rule that left Left Sector out in the cold in eight years. When you hear the Trine Skei Grande to talk about the years you realize that they were long, painful and full of bitterness.
Voters who wonder how the Left and the christian democratic party has learned to embrace his destiny and go to bed with the conservative party, may find some answers at Civita. It has, of course, was about more powers. The labour party maktarroganse must also take part of the blame.
Even has Clemet blown of such claims. It is perhaps smart. Right-people like to think they found it themselves and resent that Civita gets so much of the credit. But I don't know why she is trying to tone down that Civita driver of ideological influence. It is obvious. What else would a political think tank to have as goal than to be a role in the debate?
Comments last fall tells us that Kjell Britain Ropstad was her husband, and she has defended him even through harsh criticism of Hareides political line. She called his representation of the høyresida for karikert and fraudulent. She insinuates that he has been a foul play. In the weekend got Hareide enough and took to the bar.
We push not the opinions of our on any, bedyrer Clemet to the newspaper Our Country in its response to the criticism that came at the much talked about meeting that, collectively, the "red" Sector-erne. The originators call themselves "Powerhouse", and Kjell Magne Bondevik also had a guest appearance. He shares Hareides vision.
Clemet believes she only offers youth and a venue for political involvement, and how can Hareide be against that young uses his spare time to say on politics?
It is, of course, he is not. True to say there was just as much self-criticism he came with. He meant This in too great a degree had outsourced the ideological skoleringen to Civita which has a bourgeois agenda, not a kristendemokratisk. It strengthened the bourgeois identity in the Sector and contributed to the avenues, in his opinion.
It may be that the media has been too busy of strategy and games, less of such compounds, and also meets the move policies, such Hareide pointed out. Nevertheless, it seems well konspiratorisk when the participants on the "Powerhouse", according to Our Country, wondered about the Clemet feared a stronger Sector as a competitor to the Right, and that she therefore encouraged the marginal points of view that ensured that the party remained small.
It would have been pure evil.
Clemets analysis of where the Sector has the most to collect is reasonably ukontroversiell. She draws, among other places, a restrictive abortion - and biotekpolitikk and christian verdiers place in society. It seems immediately logical, but evokes reactions in the Progress-ers who have tried to wide out the party from being perceived as ensporet in such values. Many in the party have a more nuanced and liberal view of abortion than the Ropstad stands for.
When some of the coalition parties have claimed that Hareide parts Ropstads abortsyn, it is simply wrong. The party has demonstrably had a large debate on the topic, where a proposal from Olaug Bollestad about a new and more realistic approach was rejected, not least because of resistance from Ropstad and his supporters. Hareide supported Bollestad.
Mantra from høyresida during the battle in the fall was that Hareides Sector have been confusingly similar to the SV. The problem is that many christian voters have moved to the left. As the former editor-in-chief in Our Country and His advisor, Åse Mathisen, pointed out in his post; the base of the conservative christianity that has dominated This project, have lost power in The Norwegian church, and is a minority in society.
While Hareide tried to reach out to a secular group of "verdivelgere" who flocked to the party during the days of glory around the turn, it seems that the Progress under the Ropstad will again be a party for the christian minority that has lost all battles in the last few decades. The around in Europe has moved far to the right with a conservative vision of the values, especially when it comes to abortion, homosexuality and feminism, but also in the view of immigration.
The increasing secularization has met its motkraft in a growing nasjonalkristendom that threatens women's and minority rights. It is in such a context one must see the reactions on the KrFs reflected in the government and speculation about the party's future. It is also in this context, one must see Hareides self-criticism about the party's lack of ideological schooling and debate in recent years.
A hard and inflamed debate was swept under the rug, apparently a long tradition of a party that is fundamentally split. The debate disappears as is well known, not under the carpet. The squeeze out excess in other places. Changes are happening because the world around is changing. If the party does not take ahead yourself, others do too.
Hareides påpekning is obvious, but perhaps should he taken several environments. Civita has not been alone in the fight.
There cannot be any doubt that a wide civic collaboration has been a goal for Civita, so a rødgrønt collaboration with the centre has been there for tankesmia Agenda. Nothing wrong in it, as it's called. Clemet should rather take it as a compliment that Hareide believes her degree has succeeded.