The Van Gogh murder has kept me busy, and many others have weighed in on it, below a list of further comments. Most of the punditry is centered on the notion that what happened is the result of the Dutch culture of tolerance, multiculturalist politically correct thinking and the tendency to stick your head in the sand rather than stand up and fight the terror that is enveloping your own space. I happen to know a thing or two about this as I grew up in Holland and all of the things that people are now hyperventilating over were evident as early as the 1970s. By then it had become apparent that the huge influx of immigrants from especially Turkey and Morocco – as cheap labor, yes those were the days of labor shortages - was not of a temporary nature, they were going to stay. What’s more, the sanest and soundest minds then already predicted that the problem would come with the second generation of immigrants: raised in a very different culture at home yet expected to succeed in a totally alien environment that adhered to values diametrically opposed to the ones in which they were raised. And not only that, the cultural gap would contribute to a generation ill-equipped for a demanding and sophisticated job market.
So the Dutch have essentially failed to do anything about this looming disaster and the few who during the 1980s and 1990s spoke up about it were branded racists by mainstream media and politicians. Immigration and integration was explosive stuff, better stay away from it and that’s what everyone did. Yet, that changed with the advent of the flamboyant former Marxist Pim Fortuyn who was able to credibly formulate the issues of not just the Muslim minorities, he shaped a debate that had long taken place in boardrooms and trendy bars around the country: the need for a break with the politically correct leftist culture. Tough on immigration, in favor of deregulation and lower taxes, the Dutch rediscovered their 17th century roots as the fearless free marketers they once were, ready to fight to defend the spoils of capitalism and liberalism. And at the turn of the century they were significant, Holland was booming. Yet voters were unhappy about everything from immigration to healthcare to crime rates and the attacks of September 11 provided an extra boost to the Fortuyn platform. Were it not for the fact that a deranged animal rights activist shot him shortly before the 2002 parliamentary elections he would have been Prime-Minister or leader of the second largest Dutch political party.
Before it even started the Fortuyn revolution fizzled, the remains of his party fell apart and the mainstream parties cleverly embraced his agenda and the Dutch ended up with centre-right coalition government that is not afraid to reform social security, send troops to Iraq and boot out unwanted immigrants. But these steps did not solve the problems at all. On the contrary, the left has surged in the polls on the back of a rallying cry to save the generous entitlements on offer from the Dutch government, complaints about the commitment in Iraq and yes, protests around some of the new anti-immigration policies which indeed were hardly creative. The Dutch are still not happy it seems, a government on the right is likely to get the boot during the next election while the mess they’re in is a result of decades of mismanagement from the left. It appears the Dutch are afraid and very reluctant to take and live with the implications of drastic measures, they somehow remain a pretty unhappy bunch overall. After Van Gogh’s murder a Dutch newspaper conducted a quick poll and although the numbers will not hold up once the drama of the assassination wears off the message is clear and pretty devastating:
More than 60% is afraid of riots between Moroccans and Dutch as a result of the murder of Van Gogh. Almost 90% thinks that the Dutch security services should keep a closer eye on fundamentalist Muslims than the 150 that are now being watched. Also, 80% of the interviewed agree with the statement that: “Holland is much too tolerant”. The poll also reveals that 3 out 10 Dutchmen (28%) would leave the country if they were in a position to do so.
Well I did that about fifteen years ago and as much as it pains my parents to see their only son with his young children abroad they understand it and often tell me over the phone that Holland just isn’t a great place to grow up these days. I hear that from a lot of Dutch friends. If that many people are ready to bolt and if elections are driven exclusively by how much you can extract from the government and not about the imminent threat that seeks to destroy your society from the inside, then that society is pretty much on the ropes. Yes, the Van Gogh murder will invoke a new spirit of action and determination but no one has the political capital to act on it and if they had, it is bound to fizzle after a few years, which is what happened after Fortuyn.
I have written extensively about the American-European divide on this blog but I think what happened this week puts it all into sharper perspective. Americans have elected a wartime leader whose policies are centered on a smaller role of government and more individual freedom to gain wealth. If that great system is under pressure from external or internal threats its members are willing to take up arms and defend it, whatever the cost. Europeans often not only do not want to recognize the threat – it would be too rude an awakening for many – no, they prefer to ridicule the man that has correctly identified the threat. Yet, a huge number of Dutchmen would be all too willing to do what their forefathers did and leave for a better world where elections are driven by a brighter tomorrow rather than a comfortable today. It means many Dutchmen have acknowledged the threat but sense that a battle is pointless when a majority of their compatriots prefer a comfortable and lethargic journey to nothingness. The Van Gogh murder is not a wake-up call, we’ve had too many of those already. It’s evidence that hope in Holland and in Europe at large is steadily evaporating.