The Left’s Self-Inflicted Wound: How Internal Divisions Fuel the VVD‘s Narrative
The current stalemate in Dutch government formation, largely attributed to obstruction by the VVD, isn’t simply a matter of political maneuvering. It’s a result of vulnerabilities within the left-leaning parties attempting to form a coalition - vulnerabilities they themselves created. The VVD’s successful framing of the left as “radical” didn’t emerge from thin air; it took root in fertile ground cultivated by internal disputes and a perceived disconnect from core working-class concerns.
The issues aren’t grand scandals or policy failures, but rather the consequences of internal friction. Moments where robust debate devolved into moralizing, where nuance was equated with moral failing, and where legitimate concerns raised by members were dismissed – these instances, though perhaps small in isolation, have collectively provided ammunition for the right. The VVD has expertly exploited this perception.
A notably sensitive example lies in the handling of anti-Semitism. The issue isn’t that the merging parties harbor anti-Semitic views, but that past responses to complaints within the movement were sometiems perceived as inadequate. Jewish members haven’t always felt heard, and criticism of perhaps harmful language has occasionally been met with pressure to conform rather than open discussion. In a climate of rising anti-Semitism in the Netherlands, this is a critical failing. A party claiming to champion equality must demonstrate unwavering rejection of all forms of hatred, even when originating from within it’s own ranks.
This internal climate has allowed the VVD to effectively exploit a widening gap. The “red story” - the traditional social democratic narrative focused on the concerns of tenants, employees, caregivers, and marginalized regions – has been overshadowed by issues primarily resonating with highly educated voters. Consequently, a segment of the population feels the left is talking about them, but no longer speaking to them.
The VVD is capitalizing on this disconnect. By positioning the left as “radical,” they deflect attention from their own decade-long record on housing, poverty, healthcare, and the consequences of market-driven policies.The VVD doesn’t need to defend its policies; it simply needs to portray governing with the left as untenable. This is a cynical but remarkably effective strategy.
However, the solution doesn’t lie in countering the VVD’s narrative directly. It resides within the merging parties themselves. Reclaiming relevance requires a fundamental shift in political culture: fostering an environment that welcomes diverse viewpoints, actively combats internal hardening, and establishes clear boundaries against all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism.
Crucially, it demands a renewed focus on the “red story” – tangible improvements in everyday life. Affordable housing, job security, accessible healthcare, and manageable energy bills must be central, not peripheral, to the progressive agenda.
This isn’t about abandoning ”green” priorities; rather, it’s about integrating them. Climate policy can and should be framed as a source of job creation, benefit tenants through energy efficiency measures, and revitalize struggling regions. this integrated approach transforms the progressive agenda from a distant ideal into a concrete plan for improving lives today.
Ultimately, the left’s fate rests in its own hands. The VVD can obstruct the formation process, but it cannot dictate the left’s relevance. By becoming recognizably human, socially conscious, and focused on the practical concerns of everyday citizens, the “radical” frame will lose its power – not through direct confrontation, but through obsolescence.
