Like Steely Dan sings: That right-wing hooey sure stunk up the room. In this case, the right-wing hooey is Jesper Langballe. Last month’s stinker came from Lars Hedegaard.
How exactly did they stink up the room? Well, obviously by claiming that Muslim fathers en bloc first have their daughters raped by their uncles and then kill them for dishonouring the family. Somehow there ought to be a severe shortfall of marriageble daughters in Muslim families so it really would be dysfunctional behaviour, but I suspect that both Langballe and Hedegaard has left the world of empirically based argumentation.
Philosophers and sociologists have tried to explain how extreme forms of thinking develop – basically we are in a closed circuit which denies all outside information and consequently any form of argumentation with people like Hedegaard and Langballe is impossible.
Still, I think it is worth considering what kind of argumentation we are offered to point out where we are leaving useful discourse behind.
Now, at the risk of offering an ad hominem-argument I will point out that Langballe’s background is in Tidehverv, a strange branch of Lutheran theology, while Hedegaard used to be on the University Marxist left. I have some experience with University Marxists so I will offer this proposition: Langballe and Hedegaard can be described as manichaeians (in a philosophical, not a theological sense) – they see the world as separated in Forces of Good and Evil. The manifestations of Good in the world are by definition good and the manifestations of Evil similarly evil.
This is why Søren Krarup can argue that it is perfectly okay for Christians to beat up their children (because Christianity is the manifestation of Good) while Muslims who beat their children are evil. Once you acknowledge that Krarup sees Islam as The Force of Evil, you will understand that anything a Muslim does by definition must be evil in his perspective.
That Langballe’s brain is wired like Krarup’s should come as no surprise. In Hedegaard’s case it is just that Islam has replaced Capitalism as The Force of Evil. Ralf Pittelkow, another former University Marxist, no doubt thinks in the same way.
So what about the sexual abuse and murder claims? Well, these can easily be made into variables and subjected to empirical tests – e.g. “What is the risk of a child being sexually abused in a [insert ethnic, religious or socio-economic category] family?”, “To what degree is the victim of sexual abuse blamed for the abuse by [insert ethnic, religious or socio-economic category]?”, “What is the risk of being killed by a member of one’s own family depending on [insert ethnic, religious or socio-economic category]?”, etc, etc.
Generally, the family is a dangerous place but that Hedegaard, Langballe and Krarup no doubt will do their utmost to deny claims of abuse in Christian families – well… wem wundert’s?
Yes, It’s a Parrot but It Is Not Dead. Yet.
As the saying goes in Danish: When the cat is out, the mice are dancing, and during the last week, the mice have definitively done some dancing while prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen spent a week on vacation with his family. The culmination came on Sunday when unnamed sources in the Liberal Party criticised Løkke for his lack of leadership.
It is easy to see why the Liberals are restless: The PM has faced difficulties (to say the least) in promoting his “Project 2020“, there are problems with getting the Conservatives to play in tune and countless stupid little stories have conquered the political agenda (I mean: How the €%#” did lunches in kindergardens become a national political issue dominating the agenda for two weeks?). Add a lacklustre performance by the PM at COP15 and his mysterious failure to appear at the ambassadors’ meeting and things look – well, messy.
So now the Liberals are down at the level from 1998 in opinion polls and, horror of horrors, his Social Democratic challenger after five years finally enjoys the same level of confidence as the PM. Not good.
And we may ask: What went wrong and what can be done about it?
One thing which is noteworthy is that the Liberals do not appear to be a party in internal conflict over policy – this is not like the British Conservatives in the 1990s who fought endless battles over the legacies of Thatcherism and Europe, eventually tearing the party apart. There are, all things considered, no liberal zealots waiting in the wings. But as I have noted before, I see Løkke as a more ideologically motivated politician than Anders Fogh so the lack of ideological profile is a bit surprising.
If we look for major issues, then the relationship between the Liberals and the Conservatives merits attention – with the interesting twist that the Conservatives despite all attempts to raise their profile are stubbornly stuck at 10 per cent of the vote. Unlike the 1970s or the 1990s, it is not like the Conservatives are locked in a deadly contest with the Liberals over voters. It could be that the Conservative weakness is part of Løkke’s problems: The Conservatives need attention and they can make a splash in media but they are too week to really have leverage on government strategies.
Løkke’s fumbling is often contrasted with Fogh’s steely resolve, but we should remember that Anders Fogh did have his moments of clumsiness: Remember the messy negotiations over tax cuts in 2007 and the less than convincing reshuffles the same year? Of course, Fogh’s fumbles were seen as exceptions to a slick performance, while Løkke is now generally expected to be a klutz with the occasional bright moment. Maybe an element of positive feedback in the perception of Løkke is playing a role here?
Changing the leader before the next election looks like a dangerous path. Leave aside that the party would have to admit making a mistake in the first place, then the issue would be finding a credible candidate for the party leadership. Søren Gade is bogged down in scandals surrounding the Ministry of Defense and looks even more unreliable as a leader than Løkke. Kristian Jensen is still very young and pulling in Carl Holst from regional politics would be a bit of an experiment.
Well, as the Swedes say: He who lives will see.