Jacob Christensen

Many thanks to Chris Bertram for pointing us to this and to Esben Thomsen for finding a version which fits the template.

Edited: YouTube version of the clip inserted.

Listen, it could have been worse. It could have been … Helge Sander.

HT: Kosmopolito.

The news that one in five Danes and one in three Danish People’s Party voters would fail the citizenship test has been circulating in the twittersphere this morning. Needless to say, the assumed irony is that DF voters on the one hand are most likely to support the test while on the other hand being most likely to fail it.

At least with regard to the second part of the equation, I’m not too surprised: If DF generally appeals to the oldest and least educated segment of the electorate and the citizenship test measures factors related to eductation, then this really is what you should expect.

With regard to the first part, social and educational factors are also likely to be at play. So ideology or perceived political position may be less relevant than education and social status.

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.¹ 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 Marxists² 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?

1. Do we have cases of rape victims being punished by courts in Muslim countries for being victims? Yes #1, #2 [↩]
2. I use this term to separate between Academic Marxists and the truly crazy people populating some sections of the Danish universities in the 1970s and 1980s [↩]

One thing which is notable about the 2005-2007 and 2007-201x parliaments in Denmark is the high number of defections – at least by Danish standards. When Christian H. Hansen decided to leave the Danish People’s Party (after being an MP since 1998) he was MP #7 to change allegiances so far.

If we take the defections by party, this is the list:

New Alliance/Liberal Alliance – lost 4 out of the original 5 MPs (Gitte Seeberg, Naser Khader, Malou Aamund, Jørgen Poulsen), gained one from the Social Liberals (Simon Emil Amnitzbøll). As Gitte Seeberg retired from parliament, she was substituted by Villum Christensen, so LA now has 3 MPs.

Conservatives – lost 1 out of 18 MPs (Pia Christmas-Møller), gained one from New Alliance (Naser Khader)

Social Liberals – lost 1 out of 9 MPs (Simon Emil Amnitzbøll), gained one from New Alliance (Jørgen Poulsen)

Danish People’s Party – lost 1 out of 26 MPs (Christian H. Hansen).

Hansen’s defection is interesting because DF’s main problem has been with the loony right which the party is determined to distance itself from. Hansen on the other hand, defected because he felt that the party put too much emphasis on issues like integration policies and climate change – in short, he looks more centrist on the value dimension than the typical DF MP. Still, what an MP thinks and what attracts voters to DF may be very different things.

No, Thor Pedersen did not say that “eventually we can buy the whole world” at that press conference in 2007. That countless estate agents and bankers thought so and behaved accordingly is a different story.

Well, so much for the predicting powers of the commentariat. But as some guy once said: A week is a long time in politics. Instead of the Big One in the shape of the Mother of All Reshuffles, all we had were kindergarden lunches and feeding bottles.

Enjoy your meal.

So, was this a case of audio feedback (in Danish we would talk of “selvsving” or “rundhyl”) or did anything happen to stop the reshuffle?

Well, your guess is as good as mine. We do know that the eldest son of foreign minister Per Stig Møller died suddenly (but not completely unexpectedly) at the age of 44 and throwing the minister off the cliff might have looked a bit … brutal. Even if the two-day seminar at the end of the week appeared to be the perfect time for a reshuffle.

But then again, Møller has told the story about when he was walking on a beach with his father (former Conservative leader and finance minister Poul Møller) when Møller sr. suddenly tripped Per Stig’s legs making him fall face down in the sand. “That’ll teach you never to trust people”, was Old Møller’s lesson for his son. So Per Stig Møller might not have taken any noises coming from his party leader at face value and could very well have expected to get the sack at any time.

Especially at the most inconvenient one.

Then there is the story that the reshuffle was called off because of policy disagreements between the Conservatives and the Liberals. All very well and possible, but I still doubt if this in itself would block a reshuffle – I mean: You don’t exactly need a new government programme to throw Helge Sander off the train (preferably at very high speed, please) or to split Economic Planning and Trade and Industry into two portfolios. Okay – the latter one might take a bit of explanation.

But as the Swedes say: He who lives will see.

Lisa Simpson still has a few tricks to learn, but with a little work on her performance she’ll get there eventually:

HT: PSW.

As the media frenzy is building up in expectation of the Big Reshuffle, I thought it could be fun looking at the distribution of portfolios in the Danish government in 2001 and 2009 and see what makes sense from a political science perspective.

First, we need a distribution key. Following the exit of Connie Hedegaard, the Løkke Rasmussen cabinet has 18 ministers and 19 portfolios (Ecclesiastics is the “extra” portfolio), in 2001 the numbers were 18 and 18.

In 2001 the Liberals had won a record 31.2% of the vote with the Conservatives won 9.1%. To make life a bit easier, we make that 30/10, i.e. the Conservatives should have had a quarter of the portfolios. As it was, the distribution was 12 Liberals and 6 Conservatives, i.e. one third. This is not quite unusual, but all things considered, Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave the Conservatives a handsome deal when he formed his first cabinet. This may also explain why the distribution in 2009 is – 12/6 (discounting Connie Hedegaard and counting heads instead of portfolios) even if the result of the 2007 election was 26.2% and 10.4%.

Then there is the actual distribution of portfolios. In 2001, this was:

For the Liberals: Prime Minister’s Office, Finance, Employment, Integration, Science and Development, Food and Agriculture, Environment, Interior (i.e. Local Government) and Health, Ecclesiastics, Education, Defence, Taxes.

For the Conservatives: Economic Planning and Industry, Foreign Office, Justice (i.e. Interior and Justice in international parlance), Culture, Traffic, Social Affairs.

The only real surprise here is that the Liberals and not the Conservatives took Defence as this is a traditional preference for conservative parties. If we look at Foreign Office and Defence as a bundle, the distribution makes sense: The Conservatives could get one, but not both.

There has been some splitting and welding of portfolios over the past eight years so at the end of 2009, we had the following:

Liberals: Prime Minister’s Office, Finance, Employment, Integration and Ecclesiastics (hmmm…), Science, Food and Agriculture, Environment, Interior (Local Government) and Social Affairs, Climate and Energy, Education, Defence, Taxes, Development.

Conservatives: Economic Planning and Industry, Foreign Office, Justice (Interior), Culture, Transport, Health.

There are some clusters of portfolios, a prime minister and his deputy can play around with. For instance, Energy and Environment; Health, Social Affairs, Employment and Interior; Education, Science and Culture could all yield some surprising new portfolio. Then there is the question of swapping portfolios between parties (e.g. social affairs and health or education and science) which could complicate matters.

If I should make a guess, then these will be safe Liberal portfolios: PMO, Finance, Employment, Integration, Food and Agriculture, Interior, Education, Defence, Taxes and probably Development (if FO is Conservative).

And these are safe Conservative Portfolios: Economic Planning and Industry (as one or two portfolios, but splitting might cost the Conservatives one other portfolio), Foreign Office, Justice, Transport and in all likelihood Culture.

If we look at it historically, the Conservatives have always had their eyes on Employment (1950-1953 and 1982-1993, that is) but Social Affairs might be better for all parties. Would the Conservatives swap Health for Social Affairs?

Anyways: Reshuffle? What Reshuffle?

So, will Lars Løkke Rasmussen reshuffle his government? Probably.

When will he do the reshuffle? I have no idea.

How big will the reshuffle be? As said, I have no idea.

Reshuffles are a funny business. It it something which makes the commentariat go completely bonkers, but with the exception of the exchange of extremely unlucky or incompetent ministers, long-term effects are hard to see. As every first-year PolSci student will (or at least ought) to know, Poul Schlüter and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen made too many reshuffles to count and it didn’t really help.

The one interesting question is: What will Lene Espersen do? Like her predecessor she has been bogged down with a demanding double portfolio where Trade and Industry takes a heavy toll on her hours. It looks like she has two alternatives, both of which are problematic:

1. Relieve herself of the Trade and Industry portfolio and keep Economic Coordination. Positive effects: She does not have to spend endless hours dealing with the fall-out of the financial crisis. Negative effects: It will look like a step down in ambition.

2. Take Foreign Affairs. Positive effects: The portfolio can be very visible. Negative effects: Heavy travel schedule, European policy not included, high potential for conflicts with the Prime Minister’s Office over the general control of foreign policy.

All things considered, I would probably go for alternative #1 if somebody asked me. The 2010s are not the 1980s.

Anyway: Here are some guesses – Peter Mogensen, Jarl Cordua, Henrik Qvortrup. (Update: Forget Troels Mylenberg’s old post from 24 December)