THERE HE WAS again, friendly, imperturbable and in command, even as he announced the end of his political career. Mark Rutte has led the Netherlands since October 2010, making him the senior national leader in the EU after Viktor Orban and the longest-serving Dutch prime minister in history. But on July 10th Mr Rutte told the Dutch parliament that he would not run in an early election slated for November, having unexpectedly dissolved his coalition government on July 7th over a thorny but minor dispute regarding asylum rules. It seemed a small thing to bring down a titan. But Mr Rutte’s decision was not so much a response to issues as an effort to end his time in office on his own terms.
The fall of the government provoked widespread surprise. Given the limited policy stakes, many observers saw it as the prime minister’s strategy to put his centre-right Liberal (VVD) party in a better electoral position. Mr Rutte, whose sole weakness is voters’ long-standing suspicion that his sunny exterior conceals the heart of a scheming tactician, could not abide this. “In the past few days there has been speculation about my motives, and the only answer is: [the interests of] the Netherlands,” he said in a brief statement to parliament. Although it earned him long applause from MPs, not all were convinced.
Mr Rutte is known internationally for his smiling demeanour and his habit of cycling to work while munching an apple. His regular-guy image, equally at home in a suit or jeans and polo shirt, meshes well with Dutch culture’s odd combination of sober Calvinism and unapologetic hedonism. Domestically, his great strength has been his ability to define his party as the centre. Mr Rutte’s longevity is all the more remarkable because the Netherlands has one of the most fractured political landscapes in the world. The VVD towers over other parties, but still holds only 34 of the 150 seats in a parliament that boasts 20 different fractions; only one other manages more than 20 MPs.
Over the past two decades ever-more seats have gone to hard-right anti-immigrant parties such as the Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, and a series of imitators. These outfits tend to siphon off voters from the right of the VVD. In one analysis Mr Rutte’s decision to end his coalition over immigration was a sign of the growing strength of Europe’s conservative populists. In fact, things are more complicated.
The proximate cause of the government’s fall was a months-long negotiation over changes to the Dutch asylum system, launched after the reception centre which initially takes in nearly all asylum-seekers overflowed last summer. (The government has closed others over the years.) Asylum-seekers were forced to sleep under tarpaulins; an infant died. The right-of-centre parties in Mr Rutte’s four-party coalition—the VVD and the Christian Democrats—wanted the new system to discourage asylum-seekers. The two left-of-centre parties—the left-liberal D66 party and the small Christian Union—wanted to protect refugees’ rights.
A compromise was reportedly close. The breaking-point was the VVD’s insistence on slowing down family reunification for refugees, a measure that would have affected less than 11,000 immigrants per year, many of them children. That is a small fraction of the Netherlands’ net immigration (some 228,000 last year). The country sits roughly in the EU’s middle in terms of asylum applications per capita.
As for the political threat to the VVD, Mr Wilders’s vote share has been stagnant for a decade, and newer hard-right parties have floundered. The big populist newcomer is the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), a four-year-old party that took a fifth of the nationwide vote in provincial elections on March 15th. But its main concern is opposition to environmental and climate measures, particularly nitrogen-emission limits that force the government to choose between closing cattle farms or freezing construction (amid a housing crisis). On immigration and asylum, the BBB has taken a vague but moderate stance.
Some analysts thought Mr Rutte might have decided to blow up his coalition over asylum so as to define the next election as a battle against the left over immigration. That would put the VVD on stronger ground than a contest with the BBB over climate change. In the debate on July 10th opposition leaders accused the party of cynical manoeuvring. Even Mr Rutte’s exit from politics has not dispelled the suspicion that his every move was calculated.
When he entered government in 2002 as state secretary for social affairs, Mr Rutte said he planned on staying for “four or five years”. The former executive at Unilever, a food consortium, expected to return to the business world. Instead, by 2006 he was the leader of the VVD, narrowly chosen by the members over a hardline anti-immigrant candidate. (The next year he kicked her out of the party.)
Mr Rutte’s first cabinet, in 2010, was a minority coalition with support from the far-right PVV, but after Mr Wilders pulled his backing over budget cuts Mr Rutte pivoted to the centre. His second government in 2012 was a grand coalition with the Labour party, his third and fourth sprawling alliances with D66, the Christian Democrats and the Christian Union.
In bidding Mr Rutte farewell on July 10th, opposition leaders mentioned a series of scandals that have compromised his trustworthiness over the past few years. His government was slow to admit the state’s responsibility for earthquakes caused by gas extraction in the country’s north. Thousands of parents unjustly accused of child-benefit fraud have yet to be compensated. Mr Rutte stepped down over the affair in 2021, but came first in the elections soon after. The second-place finisher, Sigrid Kaag of D66, found herself forced to re-enter a coalition with him.
Mr Rutte will remain as caretaker prime minister until a new coalition is formed after November’s election. That could be a lengthy process: in 2021 coalition talks took nearly ten months. The VVD has announced it will select a new prime-ministerial candidate within the week. But it has no one on its benches with Mr Rutte’s authority and political talent.
Mr Rutte is unlikely to disappear. He is widely rumoured to be a candidate to replace Jens Stoltenberg as head of NATO when his (extended) term runs out next year. As for Dutch politics, the prime minister has defined the centre for so long that it is unclear where it lies without him. Opposition leaders attacked Mr Rutte during the debate for dissolving his coalition in the middle of crises over nitrogen, migration and the war in Ukraine. Pieter Omtzigt, an independent MP, wryly noted that he had never expected his colleagues to reproach Mr Rutte for leaving. As the Netherlands enters a period of political turbulence, more of them may find themselves missing his calm, upbeat, infuriatingly slick presence.■
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
