You have commented 278 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
The Why of the Swedish Vote
h/t Instapundit
[AIER] It was once unthinkable. In the country long considered the model of the social-democratic welfare state, along with its egalitarian ethos, the nationalist and populist far right has made huge political gains, all in just a few years. This is despite unrelenting attacks on the "Sweden Democrats" by the mainstream press. Many voters disagreed with what they were supposed to do and instead embraced a form of politics once unknown in this country.

Sweden now joins many other countries in Europe ‐ Italy, Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, and, of course, the UK ‐ in experiencing political upheaval in the wake of the refugee crisis. Sweden took in more refugees than any other country, and now this vote is being widely interpreted as an anti-immigrant backlash.

...The fundamental political dynamic at play concerns economics and its intersection with culture. To understand, you can do a deep dive into the academic literature on the subject to discover a large literature that goes unreported. Or you can rely on an intuitive grasp of the redistributionist nation state and the demographic and cultural presumptions behind it. Either way, there is a deeper path to understanding what is really happening in Sweden, Europe, and the US today.

...To translate these findings: people will tolerate large, invasive, redistributionist states so long as they think people more or less like themselves are benefiting; that is, provided that the public sector is perceived as an overlord of a large family.

However, when conditions change, and the population loses its collective demographic characteristics, people don’t like their tax dollars funneled to people too much unlike themselves. They will fight that one of two ways: dismantling the welfare state or kicking out those perceived to be interlopers.

In short, all data indicate that the mix of the two ‐ high diversity and high welfare ‐ is not politically sustainable. Again, this is not my opinion much less my wish; it is what all the available literature indicate. This is a gigantic if largely unmentioned problem for social democratic ideology, perhaps its largest single failing.
I wonder if people like Cory Booker and Colin Kaepernick are aware of this fact?
...Making this thesis most famous, and presenting the most dire prediction, has been Harvard University's Robert Putnam. He made a splash a decade ago (while dreading to release his research) for arguing that, "The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us." The Economist sums up his research "Diversity or the Welfare State: Choose One."
Trump, IMO, is the one who tries to prevent the rise of Nazism in USA
Posted by:g(r)omgoru

#3  People tend to not like to elect oikophobes.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2018-09-11 07:24  

#2  Why?
Closet voters have been outed.
Posted by: Skidmark   2018-09-11 07:06  

#1  Massive number of rapes. Women and children. The complete disdain for Christianity, their own culture and race.

There might be a reason that their neighbors to the west literally have bigger "manhoods".
Posted by: Woodrow   2018-09-11 07:02