At Rotary today, Kathryn Fenner gave me the above bracelet, a souvenir from her visit to the Land of the Midnight Sun. She said it represented “the Norwegian UnParty.”
Naturally curious, I went to the website, and at first found absolutely nothing to argue with. On account of it being in, you know, Norwegian. But then I asked my browser to translate the site — which it did, into a sort of stilted version of English.
And you know what? I found a lot to like. Not that I agreed with everything, of course. Nor would I agree with everything that came out of a hypothetical UnParty convention. But it was not bad. The UnParty isn’t strictly a “Center Party,” which is how this translates, but a lot of the basic ideas are at least compatible. I don’t think any Senterpartiet member would get thrown out of an UnParty meeting (if only because we’re, like, way tolerant of differences, unlike some parties I could name). Here’s a sample, from the A’s:
Abortion
The Center will continue the current abortion laws. A fertilized egg is the seed of a new life. The community has a duty, through legislation and otherwise, to give the unborn child and the woman suitable protection. We will oppose the use and research on embryos, fetal tissues and aborted fetuses in humans.
Adoption
The Center will increase adoption support for 1G (70.256 million). Furthermore, we want to simplify the adoption process through, among other things, simpler regulations, and shorter processing times…
Alcohol
The Center aims to reduce alcohol consumption in the population. Besides a systematic public health with an emphasis on promoting healthy drinking habits, the controlled access and high taxes as the most active full measures to limit alcohol use and reduce alcohol related harm. Prevention among young people and raising the average age at onset of alcohol is of great value, so that alcohol use decreases. Minimum age for purchase is an important preventive measure.
Alternative Energy
Environment and climate change means we must invest heavily in developing new technologies and alternative energy sources. The Center’s goal for Norway to produce 23 TWh of renewable electricity by 2020. New energy in the form of district heating and goals for energy efficiency must be additional to this. The total hydropower resources to be used better. There should be more wind power on land and at sea, it will be extracted more heat and electricity from biomass, and energy production from the sea in the form of wave and sea heat should be increased….
Asylum
The Center will have an immigration and integration policies that put human life in focus and where the individual has clear rights and obligations. All who live in the country should have their rights and opportunities addressed regardless of the original national origin. Any individual applying for asylum and stay in Norway must have confidence that the legal rights protected and that have met their rights as individuals. Everyone should have equal opportunities and equal access to language training, education and work backgrounds and resources. New citizens must, on their own terms, contribute a great effort to be included in community life through learning the language, and through participation in key community venues such as work, organizations and education. Good integration policy is best for the community. The Center will have an immigration and integration policies that allow local knowledge and local involvement is bearing so that the integration is real…
I also sort of liked what they said was their basic ideology, as far as I can like any ideology:
Ideology
The ideology of the Centre builds on the ideas of responsibility, fellowship and a long-term and sustainable management of nature and the environment. A vibrant democracy and decentralization of ownership, power, capital and population are basic elements of the Centre’s policy.
You know, I need to get some of my UnParty ward heelers and lackeys to get organized and put together a proper manifesto for us. All we have so far is our basic “fundamental, nonnegotiable tenets:”
- First, unwavering opposition to fundamental, nonnegotiable tenets. Within our party would be many ideas, and in each situation we would sift through them to find the smartest possible approach to the challenge at hand. Another day, a completely different approach might be best.
- Respect for any good idea, even if it comes from Democrats or Republicans.
- Contempt for any stupid idea, even if it comes from our own party leaders.
- Utter freedom to vote however one’s conscience dictates, without condemnation or ostracism from fellow party members.
Perhaps I should elaborate. Or perhaps it’s perfect the way it is. I don’t know.
Related Posts
What about ‘resistance to any stupid idea,’ instead of ‘contempt’? Otherwise we’re in danger of snarling like too many others.
I was in a barber shop today as the President was speaking on TV (Fox News, of course), and heard a lot of ‘contempt’ all around me. I was the only one in the shop who sat up and paid attention to his speech. I was appalled at the comments like, ‘I’m not going to listen to that trash . . .’ and ‘Joe Wilson called him a liar and should do it again,’ etc. Respect for our current leaders and for public office, regardless of its current occupants, should be a value of the Unparty.
In general I’d prefer the term ‘values’ to ‘tenets.’
Thanks for the input, Herb! Although I think I should point to a distinction: What you’re talking about is contempt for other human beings. I’m talking about contempt for bad ideas.
You might make the same points regardless, but there is a big difference.
[like] what Herb said
The Red Party–the one the Norway shooter (Anders Breivik) was opposing, was handing out red roses. My Italian friend, who wears pink glasses, did not get one–so I went back along the political party strip where I got the bracelet, and accepted some literature from other parties and was holding it. I guess I passed for an engaged Norwegian voter and snagged a rose for my friend.
Maybe that’s how we can get people to leave their political ruts–hand out roses….
Point well taken, but I wonder if people will make the distinction easily. I’d still prefer a different word, say ‘rejection.’
I think that a stupid tenet should be answered with facts and reason, rather than with shouts and jeers. But it looks to me as if both of our parties are trying to win by seeing who can yell the loudest.
Contempt is never a good word or thought. Worse, contempt doesn’t counter evil or corrupt forces; it only gives the misguided the impression that they are strong and righteous. In the end, it’s a flaccid self-deceiver of an emotion.
In the same way calling another’s idea “stupid” is a sure-fire way to get them to double-down. Sometimes that’s a beneficial ploy, but mostly not.
[like] what Mark said
Besides, some of the ideas we Unparty likers throw around at times prove to be ‘stupid’ after we think about them awhile. At least that happens to me, though I doubt everyone else is perfect, even if they do better than me at thinking before they write.
The problem, I guess, is defining the words ‘stupid’ and ‘contempt,’ and because of that difficulty, it’s better to those to terms for something else.
We’ll take up the wording at our convention, when we have one…
Pretty much always [like] what Mark says. Wish he’d run for something so I could vote for him.
Facts and reason don’t necessarily work, Kathryn. The sources for the facts are challenged and/or dismissed. A logical argument fails because the person you are trying to convince fails to see your logic.
According to this Mother Jones article, you also have to present your facts in such a manner that the other person doesn’t feel challenged.
you also have to present your facts in such a manner that the other person doesn’t feel challenged.
-Nick
That’s one of my big weaknesses. Seems pretty obvious but somehow when you see complete nonsense it’s hard not to challenge the person who makes the claim. I suppose that’s why John Kerry got into so much trouble over the Swiftboating nonsense. He ignored it until it was too late to be perceived as anything but a sour-grapes whiner.
Yes, Nick. We must not confuse people with the facts….