Wonderful, fairly portrayed insights worth acknowledging. These insights could, as you mentioned/hinted at, be about any country. It's easy to take sides without attempting to understand the why? Glad you delved into that.
Yes, and that is the picture that you keep missing if you read/watch the 'regular' news coverage. What I often see is similar trends / problems occurring around the world modified by local/regional/national dimensions and contexts. Looking at it in that light you realise that the potential for, in this case, an electoral upset in this direction is always there because those trends are still there. On a related note, I also sensed that this was not the time to vote for smaller/new parties that at most showed 1 seat in the polls, because the context and issues of this election were sucking away all the oxygen from the smaller parties away to bigger ones (or prospective bigger ones). Change was in the air one could say. But it seems that not all of us breathe the same air..
I find it difficult to attend to mainstream media for precisely these reasons. Objective journalism it ain't. Interesting about the suction towards bigger parties, and not because I believe they all suck. This might belie an inherent fear amongst voters who would look more to established and well-resourced parties for their political solutions, even when these show no real interest in solving anything. Personally I wonder & worry about suction/maelstroms/ and, especially black holes. If we are living a dream and the sun exemplifies that, then implosion would indicate a final death throe of that dream. Thanks for your time, Robert.
What makes Dutch politics especially interesting is the fact that anyone can start a party if they get enough signatures. Two of the winning parties of these elections did not exist 5 years ago, for instance, but managed to get almost a fifth of all votes. This makes it more dynamic and susceptible to outside pressures. I think this is what is great about it. The issues, as I see them, are more in the fact that the government and way of doing things in all its departments and policies isn't like this and is usually same old same old. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as you need some sort of consistency from government to government, but which is bad when there are structural issues in precisely this continual part that therefore do not get fixed no matter how people vote, hence the increasing apathy/distrust despite what is a very democratic and trusted process.
Interesting. I've sort of been following the Cornelius West campaign in America, and while doing so encountered just how difficult it is just to get on the ballot as a third (fourth?) party there. Your structural issues are also interesting, because the point has been made before that politics tends to solve the same problems over and over. Why wouldn't people have trust issues? Keep up the good work Robert.
Wonderful, fairly portrayed insights worth acknowledging. These insights could, as you mentioned/hinted at, be about any country. It's easy to take sides without attempting to understand the why? Glad you delved into that.
Yes, and that is the picture that you keep missing if you read/watch the 'regular' news coverage. What I often see is similar trends / problems occurring around the world modified by local/regional/national dimensions and contexts. Looking at it in that light you realise that the potential for, in this case, an electoral upset in this direction is always there because those trends are still there. On a related note, I also sensed that this was not the time to vote for smaller/new parties that at most showed 1 seat in the polls, because the context and issues of this election were sucking away all the oxygen from the smaller parties away to bigger ones (or prospective bigger ones). Change was in the air one could say. But it seems that not all of us breathe the same air..
I find it difficult to attend to mainstream media for precisely these reasons. Objective journalism it ain't. Interesting about the suction towards bigger parties, and not because I believe they all suck. This might belie an inherent fear amongst voters who would look more to established and well-resourced parties for their political solutions, even when these show no real interest in solving anything. Personally I wonder & worry about suction/maelstroms/ and, especially black holes. If we are living a dream and the sun exemplifies that, then implosion would indicate a final death throe of that dream. Thanks for your time, Robert.
What makes Dutch politics especially interesting is the fact that anyone can start a party if they get enough signatures. Two of the winning parties of these elections did not exist 5 years ago, for instance, but managed to get almost a fifth of all votes. This makes it more dynamic and susceptible to outside pressures. I think this is what is great about it. The issues, as I see them, are more in the fact that the government and way of doing things in all its departments and policies isn't like this and is usually same old same old. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as you need some sort of consistency from government to government, but which is bad when there are structural issues in precisely this continual part that therefore do not get fixed no matter how people vote, hence the increasing apathy/distrust despite what is a very democratic and trusted process.
Interesting. I've sort of been following the Cornelius West campaign in America, and while doing so encountered just how difficult it is just to get on the ballot as a third (fourth?) party there. Your structural issues are also interesting, because the point has been made before that politics tends to solve the same problems over and over. Why wouldn't people have trust issues? Keep up the good work Robert.