Amanda Sokolnicki’s article in Dagens Nyheter critiques the Moderate Party’s interpretation of the US 2024 elections, arguing their conclusions are not only flawed but dangerously naive. Sokolnicki draws parallels between the Republican Party’s struggles with its extreme wing and the Moderates’ increasingly cozy relationship with the Sweden Democrats. The Moderates, she posits, seem to believe that emulating the Republican strategy of appeasing their far-right flank will guarantee electoral success. However, the US election results, she argues, demonstrate the opposite: such strategies ultimately backfire, alienating moderate voters and leading to electoral defeat. The Moderates’ purported takeaway – that the Republicans lost because they weren’t right-wing enough – is ridiculed as both absurd and alarming.
Sokolnicki dissects the Moderates’ flawed logic by highlighting the Republican Party’s internal divisions and the eventual consequences of their rightward lurch. Donald Trump’s influence, she notes, pushed the party further to the extremes, prioritizing the appeasement of fringe elements over appealing to a broader electorate. This strategy, while seemingly successful in the short term, ultimately led to the alienation of moderate Republicans and independents, contributing significantly to their electoral losses. The Moderates, Sokolnicki contends, are making the same mistake, misinterpreting the reasons behind the Republican defeat and doubling down on a strategy that is demonstrably failing in other countries.
The author further argues that the Moderates’ focus on perceived cultural grievances, echoing the Republican playbook, is a dangerous distraction from real policy issues. By prioritizing issues like immigration and cultural anxieties, the Moderates are neglecting crucial areas like economic inequality, healthcare, and climate change. This focus on emotionally charged issues, Sokolnicki argues, serves to mobilize the party’s base and its far-right allies, but ultimately fails to address the real concerns of a majority of Swedish voters. This strategy, she warns, risks further polarizing the political landscape and pushing moderate voters away from the party.
The comparison between the Republicans and the Moderates is further extended by examining the erosion of democratic norms. Sokolnicki points to the Republican Party’s increasing tolerance for authoritarian rhetoric and their undermining of democratic institutions. She expresses concern that the Moderates, by aligning themselves with the far-right Sweden Democrats, are similarly eroding democratic principles in Sweden. The acceptance of extremist views and the normalization of inflammatory rhetoric, she argues, pose a serious threat to the stability and health of Swedish democracy.
Sokolnicki urges the Moderates to learn the real lessons from the US elections: that embracing extremism is not a path to victory but a recipe for disaster. She calls for a return to moderate, center-right principles, emphasizing the importance of engaging with a broader electorate and addressing the real concerns of ordinary citizens. The Moderates, she concludes, must choose between clinging to power through alliances with the far-right, or rebuilding their party on a foundation of inclusive, moderate policies that benefit all Swedes.
In essence, Sokolnicki’s article serves as a sharp rebuke of the Moderate Party’s current political trajectory. She argues that their misreading of the US election results, coupled with their increasing dependence on the far-right, is not only strategically unsound but also a dangerous threat to Swedish democracy. The article functions as a call for a return to moderation and a rejection of the divisive, extremist politics that have characterized the Republican Party and are now, she argues, infecting the Moderates.
