Freedom à la Sahlin?

Så vinner vi valet Politik Debattämnen Debatt Aftonbladet: "Rättvis fördelning, välfärd åt alla och minskade klyftor skapar trygghet och möjligheter som gör att den individuella friheten kan växa. Därför är vår socialdemokratiska dröm om frihet också en dröm om jämlikhet."

Another point of view was declared by Göran Hägglund (KD) during his Sommar program on the radio. It is proably a well known thesis: "Don't fight the rich, fight poverty". That would create the security that Sahlin is requesting at the same time as money would rightfully be returned in the form of philantropy. It would give welfare to all or at least to those that are in need.

I sense in this kind of argumentation that Sahlin wants to take care of all people--"förmynderiet", or "tutelage". "Welfare to all". Luckily most people are OK on their own. I think it is important to make this distinction or otherwise it will be very difficult to discuss individual freedom.

"Just redistribution"? Well, people that give away their own money do this more rightfully than people who give away other people's money. They also invest skilfully in other companies via the stock market. Also, why would shrinking wealth distribution create security and possibilities. Where is the link? Sounds like Sahlin thinks that individual freedom is created by security in the form of welfare. This is interesting because many people apparently think that all people need this security all the time.

Yes, it is good to know that you don't fall below a certain level, from which it is difficult to resurface, but I don't understand why this would be the driving force since most people find security in their abilities and in their jobs. Real freedom is created by government by aiding entrepreneurships and business in general and by aiding science and education.

The last sentense in the citation above is just a rewriting of the Law of Jante. Freedom is when you don't have to worry about people succeeding all around you all the time.

The mystery is why half of Sweden buys into these kind of arguments? In any case they are detrimental to the quest of keeping up steam in the age of globalization. And that steam is what secures our welfare.

Foreign born in Sweden 2008

There are 1.3m foreign born individuals, about 12%, in Sweden 2008 according to scb.se. The twenty most populous nations of birth are:

1. Finland, 175,113
2. Iraq, 109,446
3. Yugoslavia, 72,285
4. Poland, 63,822
5. Iran, 57,633
6. Bosnia-Hercegovina, 55,960
7. Germany, 46,854
8. Denmark, 46,167
9. Norway, 44,310
10. Turkey, 39,230
11. Chile, 28,118
12. Thailand, 25,858
13. Somalia, 25, 159
14. Lebanon, 23,291
15. United Kingdom, 19,460
16. Syria, 18,786
17. China, 18,256
18. Romania, 17,352
19. USA, 15,901
20. India, 15,263

In the Melting Pot, USA 2000, there was 280m people and 11% were foreign born. 52% from Latin America, 26% from Asia, 16% from Europe and 6% from other areas of the world.

A Plural Society

Samhällsorientering nyckel till integration SvD: "Sverige är, och ska vara, ett land som präglas av mångfald. Det berikar och utvecklar alla som lever och verkar här. Men vi kan inte oförblommerat välkomna all mångfald som positiv, vi måste också vara tydliga med att all mångfald inte är bra."

Nyamko Sabuni writes an article that I agree with in essence. The above citation concerns multiculturalism. Sharia is not good, there should be equality before the law. When a muslim is not allowed to change faith, it is not good. Honor killings, not good.

How do you defend multiculturalism then? I read a book review in The Economist that argued for a sharpening of arguments for multiculturalism among liberals because this book, and the sentiments around, are becoming increasingly anti-foreign. We need immigration for our economy and those who come nowadays are apparently mostly Iraqis and Poles.

Sabuni says that plurality enriches and develops all involved. I have been an immigrant in the US and I know that it is very exciting and a tumbling experience to come to a new country. This initial enthusiasm from the immigrant is contagious and creates an interface which makes people question their status quo, something that is very important for getting new perspectives. Comparing the new with the old is a very important process that has been a driving force for change all through history. The entry of muslims into Europe is a major movement of people.

Iraq is a fascinating country with a proud history where the Sumerian culture was the first of our civilizations to develop in historic time with the advent of the cuneiform writing. It is fitting that the Iraqis now can learn about democracy in Sweden and lets hope they are mostly USA Iraqis and not Saddam Iraqis, although they most probably see themselves as Swedish Iraqis.

The Americans have of course with their Melting Pot thought more about pluralism than most. William James, the first American psychologist, have written that pluralism was "crucial to the formation of philosophical and social humanism to help build a better, more egalitarian society". It is obviously so that people in the Middle East and Europe will find themselves more equal as muslims comes to for example Sweden and succeeds.

Some would argue that change is not a good thing. However, in at least the US and Japan the notion of change has created new developments in politics during the last year. Change is perhaps not the key word right now in the EU but I think it should be. Further integration of the 27 member states at the same time as the enlargement is cancelled is a winning concept along the lines of the Melting Pot. Incorporating Turkey would be too much change in the foreseeable future.

During the conference of Nya Moderaterna and an article by Maud Olofsson, the party leader of Centerpartiet the question of value constancy came up. It is important to restate that alignment to common European values is of importance and that immigrants would have to adapt the most. It is probably easier for an immigrant to understand the importance of Swedish values if they are served in the European context. At the present 5-10% immigration of muslims there should not be any problems and it is difficult for me to understand people that do worry.

Japan fascinates!

Japan's ruling party could re-emerge after losses - Yahoo! News: "'Japan isn't like the United States or Britain,' Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura said Wednesday. 'We don't have a framework to carry out this transition.'"

This is in all probability an important point. One of the arguments that Yukio Hatoyama, the new leader, had was that it was time to give power back to the politicians from the bureaucrats. Yes, the "bureaucrats", whatever that means. Here in Sweden Alliansen has had similar problems with the Social Democratic power circle as they have been below in the polls most of the time since the elections 2006. Democracy in molasses?

Is Reinfeldt, like Merkel, looking for a coalition with the Social Democrats?

Chancellor Merkel Refuses to Endorse the FDP - WSJ.com: "Mrs. Merkel refuses to attack the Social Democratic Party—with which she's locked in a so-called grand coalition—or to embrace the pro-business Free Democratic Party, traditionally the CDU's preferred partner. Her failure to clearly stand for a reform-minded government with the FDP may condemn Germany to four more years of compromises."

I can't help thinking that Reinfeldt, with his speech at the recent conference for the Nya Moderaterna, might be eying for a coalition with Socialdemokraterna that would assure that the former communists do not enter the government. That is if the Red-Greens will stay in the lead with increasing joblosses that makes the "job-line" look silly. The article above in WSJ is not the first reference I see that Merkel actually would prefer to stay in a coalition with SPD, the German Social Democrats.

It is indeed the same kind of idea that President Obama has with his insistence of the bipartisanship. Sarkozy does it another way. He hires leftish politicians into his government instead. Reinfeldt is like Merkel also the more popular politician. Steinmeier and Sahlin fare about the same. Could be that the real power is disseminated in society in a different fashion that spans the party line and that the parties want to have something going in the old vein for people to feel comfortable with.

It is clear, however, that this grand coalition rule does not fit the US where there seems to be any number of issues that currently split the country in two. Torture, or "enhanced interrogations" is one of these. The republican party has 65% Cheneysians which presumably does not shun the use of "enhanced persuasion" techniques. Among such are means of lowering the intelligence on people that you term your enemies, such as the statistically more intelligent Democrats. Violence feeds violence is conventional wisdom and I have begun to wonder if there are similar differences here in Sweden.

Sixty million dead!

They remember the initiation of World War II today. It was 70 years ago. Sixty million people died.

From various media I got the impression that it has become a European affair. People commented on the relatively modest presence of the US at the occasion. The US have also more or less decided against installing the gadgets in Poland and Czech Republic that were very controversial with Russia.

In a way that makes sense because the US is busy elsewhere. There is China and Japan and there is the Middle East. Europe is now a European affair of the same total GDP as the US and 495m people. Then there is Russia, of course, but Europe will deal with them day by day and in the case of Germany with a thirty year energy deal.

This is Obama's world not Cheney's. No wonder it is popular in Europe and Russia. So popular that the EU web site does not mention the US as important for peace in Europe. Also, 2/3 of the Russians believe they had taken down Germany by themselves during WWII. I hope that does not mean that the majority of Russians sees themselves as the proper rulers of Europe.

However, Europe is probably ready for this. They have the EU, or rather the member states...

Huffington Post speculates

Cheney In 2012? Some Key GOPers Aren't Kidding: "'But if the agenda turns to security, Obama is mired in a no-win mess in Afghanistan, and the Obama administration hasn't created a single job in four years after indebting the nation for generations, maybe Dick Cheney could run on a theme of 'Change'.'"

Reading up a little on the discussion of torture. I you start such a discussion with security concerns you very easily sneak in some torture for the security of the nation. However, which I prefer, you start with human decency for our civilization there are not many situations where torture would be warranted.

They are posing the question if Cheney would be back for the next presidential election at the Huffington Post. In some poll I saw Cheney had a 35% approval so he is more popular now than Bush was during the later time of his presidency, that, by the way, Cheney was part of. For those of you that read my post yesterday about what goes on here in Sweden, without terrorists, I think Obama's position of no torture is a very important one. Especially if it is extended to the non-terrorist realm as well. John McCain attacked Cheney the other day also on the torture issue. I would not be surprised that some of the car burnings we see here in Europe are due to the frustration of being manipulated from above with TTDE.

If Cheney have 35% approval in the US he does not have it abroad and it would probably be a bad decision to elect him president. Obama's paradigm is the better one for our present world situation. However, as you might remember a person like Newt Gingrich does not think in this way. John Bolton does not either but today in WSJ he did not say that Iran's nuclear installations should be bombed. He just stated that sanctions would not work and gave reasons for this. A large question mark on Iran in other words.