Harsh comments without nuance are, of course, not new, and can be heard on both sides of the political spectrum. But not by elected representatives. Or, that’s how it used to be. Now it seems to be considered acceptable.

What changed? It probably has its roots in what happened with Pim Fortuyn. Before Foruyn changed Dutch politics, politicians and their audience seemed aware of the limits to what they could say. Maybe this even went too far. I think that criticism from the right that, for a long time, you couldn’t even talk about immigration, is partially correct. When [VVD politician] Bolkesteijn brought it up in the 90s, he was vigorously attacked, but what he said then has been adopted by most parties now.

This all changed with Fortuyn. He had no problems with channeling the unfiltered negative feelings that some people had about immigration and Islam. When he was attacked for this, this was, especially after he was killed, often called “demonizing”.

This did not just have the effect that immigration became a subject that was firmly on the table. It went further than that. Determined to not be accused of demonizing someone anymore (and, in the case of politicians, to get Fortuyn voters back), people often hesitated to call someone out who used harsh language to talk about immigration or Islam. The phrases “that goes too far” or “you shouldn’t say that” were barely heard anymore. A kind of reverse political correctness: being nuanced was out. Yelling is now not just allowed, it’s almost mandatory. Because you can say something, apparently you should. This fit perfectly with the internet culture as displayed on some websites like GeenStijl, who proudly spread their bile.

It provided a good environment for Geert Wilders. He was able to let loose his hatred of Muslims. De media liked it, and certainly did not consider it to be their duty to be too critical of him. Before you’re know it, you’re demonizing someone. Can’t have that.

Now things have come to a head. Wilders made major gains in the elections (although not quite as big as the polls showed a year ago). How are other parties reacting to this? Do they are make a principled choice? Because that’s what it is. In magazine de Groene Amsterdammer Mathijs Bouman explains why [Dutch]. Yes, all those things are in Wilders’ program. But during the campaign, the [conservative] VVD did their best to ignore all that. By doing that, they crossed a line. If you try to downplay the extreme parts of the Wilders program, and only mention differences in the economic program, then you are clearly saying that Wilders’ hatred of Muslims is acceptable.

In the formation of a new government, the ball is now in the court of the Christian Democrats (CDA). During the campaign, they did make principled statements against Wilders. Will they stand by them, or will they also cross the line? Don’t they think that this is going too far?