From Daniel Greenfield, at FrontPage Magazine:
Geert Wilders and the Real Story of the Election https://t.co/Jx82X5jiwG— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) March 16, 2017
Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education - from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Geert Wilders and the Real Story of the Election https://t.co/Jx82X5jiwG— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) March 16, 2017
Has the “Patriotic Spring” sprung? What’s next for #Netherlands after elections, now @monkeycageblog https://t.co/KC0Cpre7Qg
— Joshua Tucker (@j_a_tucker) March 16, 2017
What does a coalition look like?
In multiparty countries, the absence of a clear majority winner means parties bargain over policy and government positions until a coalition emerges that can earn the support of a majority in parliament. In the Netherlands, once that bargaining is done, a more formal coalition agreement then names the prime minister and cabinet, which then draws up the Government’s Statement of policy priorities.
This coalition bargaining process in the Netherlands generally takes about three months. Large parties hold a bargaining advantage because they require fewer partners to form a majority.
Since World War II, the largest Dutch party has been either the centrist Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), the social democratic Labor Party (PvdA), or the conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). Coalitions form around the leader of one of these three to be the prime minister.
As noted in Figure 1, the Labor Party (PvdA) suffered a loss of 26 seats. There are numerous parties of the left and center, along with smaller parties. But adding together the seats claimed by the PvdA, Green Left (GL), Socialist (SP), Christian Union (CU), Party for the Animals (PvdD), pensioners’ (50 Plus) and multiculturalism (DENK) parties falls far short of the necessary majority.
All the major parties during the campaign pledged not to work with Wilders, even though the PPV holds a sizable number of seats. In 2012, Wilders backed out of his governing arrangement with the VVD and CDA. That episode and his further radicalization and controversial statements may leave PPV out of the final coalition.
President Trump released a spending plan Thursday that would slash programs across government with a machete to pay for sharp increases in the military, veterans’ health and the construction of a wall along the southwest border.More.
On the chopping block: billions of dollars in research aimed at fighting diseases and climate change; job training programs; grants to local communities that pay for public transit and housing, heating oil for the poor; diplomatic efforts across the globe; and libraries.
Proposed for elimination: at least 19 independent agencies including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Trump argued that many of the programs he wants to slash are ineffective, outdated or duplicative. Beyond that, he says the budget is sending a message to reorder $1.1 trillion in the federal government’s discretionary spending around his “America First” agenda, putting defense and border security at the center while curtailing other government functions.
“We can't spend money on programs just because they sound good,” said Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a conservative former congressman from South Carolina.
In addition to proposing cuts across the spectrum, Trump would increase funding for school choice, counter-terrorism and the hiring of more border agents and immigration judges and prosecutors. But the biggest increase, by far, would go to the military in the form of an additional $54 billion in annual spending.
The budget, which lacks many details Trump and his agency leaders will add in the coming months, will not become law in its current form...
Harvard-educated man sentenced to 40 years for bizarre Vallejo kidnapping police had called hoax https://t.co/cVmFeM9NYn @brittny_mejia— Hailey Branson-Potts (@haileybranson) March 17, 2017
It had been nearly two years since Denise Huskins had been in the same room as the man who kidnapped her in the early morning darkness.Keep reading.
Standing at a podium in a Sacramento courthouse, she faced him. Then she turned her words against the man — a Harvard-educated former attorney — who had bound, drugged and raped her twice.
“Now we meet face to face, eye to eye,” Huskins told Matthew Muller. “I’m Denise Huskins, the woman behind the blindfold.”
Huskins’ family and friends grew teary eyed as she described her pain after Muller kidnapped her on March 23, 2015, and after the Vallejo Police Department, at one point, publicly portrayed the case as a hoax.
In an emotional scene, Huskins asked that Muller be sentenced to life in prison.
“I know, without doubt or hesitation, that as long as he walks free, there will be more victims,” she said.
At the sentencing, Muller’s defense attorney argued for a 30-year sentence, citing his client’s struggles with mental illness.
“I’m sick with shame,” Muller said, adding that he would accept whatever sentence was imposed.
His parents sat with their younger son and their family and friends, as they waited in silence for U.S. District Court Judge Troy L. Nunley to hand down his sentence:
Forty years in prison.
The kidnapping took place before dawn as Huskins and her boyfriend, Aaron Quinn, slept in the master bedroom of his home on Mare Island. The couple awoke to find a stranger standing in the room.
Using a stun gun and a water pistol made to look like a gun, Muller ordered the couple to lie still while he bound and blindfolded them and gave them a sleep-inducing liquid, prosecutors said. A recorded message played over headsets, threatening electric shock if the couple did not comply with his orders.
Muller placed Huskins in the trunk of Quinn’s 2000 Toyota Camry and moved her to the trunk of another car before driving her to his family’s South Lake Tahoe home...
MY take on Dutch elections. Headline by @nytimes doesn't really summarize different points made in it. #TK17 🇳🇱 https://t.co/9ZmoHAC936
— Cas Mudde (@CasMudde) March 16, 2017
The parliamentary election in the Netherlands on Wednesday was predicted to be the next populist show of strength after the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s election. The Dutch would be the first of a number of European countries to succumb to the right-wing populists’ siren songs in 2017, with the French not far behind.
It didn’t work out that way.
Geert Wilders, who is all too often described as a bleach blond or referred to as “the Dutch Trump,” did not defeat the conservative prime minister, Mark Rutte. In fact, he didn’t come close.
With more than 95 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, or V.V.D., came first with 21.2 percent of the vote, compared to Mr. Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which took only 13.1 percent. Mr. Wilders barely improved on his margin in the 2012 election (where he took 10.1 percent) and failed to do as well as he did in 2010 (where he got 15.5 percent of the vote).
The real story in Dutch politics isn’t Mr. Wilders’s rise, it is the unprecedented fragmentation of the political system. Together, Mr. Rutte’s and Mr. Wilders’s parties look set to make up only 33 percent of the Parliament, with 11 more political parties constituting the rest. This splintering of Dutch politics is making effective governance of the country increasingly impossible.
While previous Parliaments have counted 14 or more factions, what has changed is the relative size of the parties. In 1986, the top three parties together won 85 percent of the vote. In 2003, it was down to 74 percent. Today it is just around 45 percent.
Because of its proportional representation system of voting, the Netherlands is an extreme case. But the trends are similar across Western Europe: The main center-right and center-left parties are shrinking, smaller parties are growing and unstable coalition politics are becoming the norm. There are many reasons for this — from secularization to deindustrialization to the emergence of new political issues, like the environment or immigration.
The consequences have been painfully visible across Europe for some time. It took Belgium 541 days to form a government after its 2010 election. Both Greece and Spain were in recent years forced to hold second elections after the first Parliaments failed to form coalitions. In the Netherlands, forming a government is not quite as difficult, but the next one will most likely be a coalition of four to six parties.
If the Party for Freedom is excluded — and almost all parties have pledged that they will refuse to serve in a coalition with Mr. Wilders — the government will probably consist of five or six medium-size parties that span almost the entire political spectrum. Given that the conservative V.V.D. and the Christian Democratic Appeal are ideologically closer to the Party for Freedom than they are to, for example, the Green Left party with which they will be governing, the government will be rightly perceived as an anti-Wilders coalition.
This will play right into Mr. Wilders’s hands. He has long argued that the Netherlands’ political parties are all the same. Being the leader of the largest opposition party against an internally divided, weak “anti-Wilders” coalition is undoubtedly his second most desired outcome of the elections — after, of course, winning an outright majority of the votes.
The only way to break this vicious circle is for the parties in government to come together to support a positive program, one that justifies their cooperation and their decision to exclude Mr. Wilders...
"Walkin' On The Sun"
John Sexton, at Hot Air, "University of Chicago postpones course on the problem of whiteness..."
Mary Chastain, at Legal Insurrection, "‘Deplatforming Works’: Ocasio-Cortez Celebrates Fox News and Tucker Carlson Parting Ways..."The Other McCain, "How to Translate Bidenese..."