How the Dutch fucked up my politics, Volume II

They aren't "nice," but they are very progressive. Now what?

From what I’ve seen, the Dutch have one of the most staunchly “calm down, you’re fine” attitudes in the world. This is a difficult thing to prove having not experienced every culture in the world, but let’s not limit ourselves to facts. This is the internet, after all. Perhaps we can just agree they are pragmatic, steady, and decidedly not precious.

I remember an afternoon shortly after the pandemic began when for some reason our neighbor’s elderly father was standing in our living room explaining that he was going to see his kids and grandkids at will and he was not going to die in some hospital. If he got covid, so be it, he “had lived a good life.”

I stared at him with my mouth open. The man was around 80 years old and certainly struck me as a dude we should fight for, life-wise I mean. He seemed rather indifferent on the subject, expressing a perspective of “When a person is gonna die, it’s their time and life decides that sort of thing.”

what sort of boomer stoicism

My point here is The Dutch are not what you’d call “feelers.” They don’t get worked up easily and they are not easily swayed. Not by weather, not by pandemics. They’re generally led by order, reason, rules, and results.

Except on New Year’s Eve when they run around blowing everything up and lighting off “banned” fireworks. Although, they certainly get the “results” in the form of insanely beautiful firework displays and the loss of a few eyes and fingers.

We could talk about their history of Calvinism and its role in the formation of the cultural identity, but I prefer my own astute and peer-reviewed assessment, which is that the weather is too shitty for anything other than a disregard for feelings. Feelings can go on forever, and anything that goes on forever blocks us from getting home, where it’s warm.

The faster we fix this the faster I can not be here in the world where my eyelids are freezing shut and my jeans are ice columns.

Therefore, commitment to pragmatism.

You’re welcome.

And this brings us to one of two related cultural norms I’ve observed here that had the most poignant effect on my politics: Progressive Dutch laws are the result of pragmatism, not feelings. In all my years here I have never met a single Dutch bleeding heart despite their commitment to a robust social welfare net, universal healthcare, labor laws, egalitarian ethics of fairness, etc.

They are not doing this shit to be nice. They are doing it because it is effective, because it offers the best results for the collective whole, which is logically the focus when forming societal policies. They research, and they come up with a plan, and this process is largely divorced from “niceness.” They are however quite proud of this aspect of Dutch culture. I have met more than one Dutchie who, after hearing about somebody living in poverty, or feeling stuck in an abusive marriage, responds, “This is The Netherlands! They do not have to live that way!”

Imagine a social welfare net as a source of cultural pride rather than bootstraps delusion and a strange appreciation for getting utterly fucked by the government while calling it “freedom.” A girl can dream.

They do not, for example, treat drug addicts humanely because they like them. They do not approve of them nor do they feel sorry for them. They treat drug addiction as a medical condition rather than a crime because only one of these approaches achieves the outcome that they want: less crime, highest quality of life possible, and reduced recidivism. Of course they also know the science of addiction but let’s not get crazy.

Throwing Femke in jail for her bag of cocaine fourteen times does not make Femke less likely to do cocaine. And it costs a lot. So, they do something else.

In other news, The Netherlands has some of the most comprehensive sex education in the world. It begins at school at age 4 in general discussions of what families are and evolves into discussions of masturbation, the biology of reproduction, and videos of cartoon characters having all kinds of sex (hetero, two men, two women, etc.). It concludes for high school seniors in discussions of consent, STDs, contraception, and how orgasms work.

They do not do this because they’re committed to sexual liberation or supporting your personal bed decisions. I’m guessing they don’t care what you do as long as it doesn’t affect the whole.

More specifically, I believe they do it because:

A.) They are pragmatic toward sex, bodies, and the interaction between the two.

B.) They are not driven by pearl-clutching moral codes.

C.) It works.

Getting back to the Calvinism thing, I read recently that Calvin believed that whether or not a person goes to heaven is determined before birth and that it was God’s job to judge, not ours. Perhaps you can see the connection here. If it’s God’s job to moralize, I can stay out of it and hang out in practical land. And if it doesn’t matter so much what I do on earth, I don’t have to spend my time proving how good I am.

Look, Dutch sex ed would have American conservatives AND liberals doing backflips of outrage. We would, as a whole, hate it. All the pearls on earth would be clutched by frantic parents. Believe me, I've had to take a few deep breaths when my kids come home and tell me what they learned during sex ed week. I have to remind myself that The Netherlands actually has some of the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the world (the USA is the highest among developed nations), and, in my favorite piece of information, some of the highest levels of young people reporting positive first sexual experiences. People here also tend to have sex for the first time at a later age than in the United States.

In other words, their way works much better than ours. The outcomes they’re getting are the ones we want.

However, don’t get too excited, lefties. One of my kids’ teachers during sex ed week showed a video covering gender identities. It went over man, woman, and non-binary, but when it got to neopronouns (ze/zer/hir, etc.), the teacher said “This is fucking dumb,” and turned the video off. That’s a direct quote. She said it in Dutch (“dit is fucking dom”) and used the curse word in English.

She then told the class, “People can identify however they want, but there are two biological sexes and that’s different from how they identify,” and then she invited the group to discuss it. They were 12 years old. Nobody stormed the school or rioted or demanded she get fired or protested the next school board meeting. Please be clear that this teacher’s behavior is not particularly unique. She is within the bounds of culturally acceptable behavior (even the swearing). All of my kids’ teachers have shared strong opinions on subjects that are quite controversial, although you also must understand that the “culture war” here does not exist to the extent that it does in the USA. It is a much more balanced environment with less fear and less tribal alignment. What I’m arguing is that this is largely a direct result of free and open discourse. They have it because they allow free debate and discussion.

So, do we hate the Dutch now? What a quandary! They say heretical things yet have enacted one of the most progressive societies in the world. They are getting the results we want but they are not performing as we believe they should. NOW WHAT DO WE DO.

They get progressive results while behaving in a way American liberals would argue is antithetical to progress. And herein lies the crux of how living here most significantly altered my politics: I saw the difference between talk and action, and the importance of wide-open conversation and debate in the formation of ideas. We must let people talk about things even if we don’t like them. Not because it’s pleasant. Not because it’s “nice.” But because it’s better than the alternative. It’s the only approach that works. It’s the only approach that garners genuine support and openness to new ideas, aka, progress.

I need to be clear that when a teacher says “neopronouns are fucking dumb” or “The Prime Minister is a bad man for keeping you kids away from school because of a virus!” (which was said to my then 5-year-old during class one day), the expectation is that the statement will be received exactly for what it is: A single opinion spoken by a single person.

Dutch children are not expected to blindly and unilaterally accept everything spoken by authority. Quite the opposite, actually. They are expected to think for themselves. The assumption is that a child has the innate capacity to hear an idea, consider it, then formulate their own, but that this ability will be honed through practice. And they are expected to do so. Obviously they do not expect deep critical analysis from a 5-year-old. But they simply do not see ideas as threats to children. Or anyone, for that matter.

I imagine the thinking probably goes something like this: If a kid hears an opinion at school, he or she will bring it up later at home, or ask other people about it. Other people will give them different ideas. Then a discussion will ensue. The child will, in other words, learn to think. When my kindergartener came home parroting the opinion of his beloved teacher about how the Prime Minister was a “bad man,” that’s exactly what we did. We analyzed it over dinner. It sparked a great conversation.

When a rainbow flag was burned and left on the playground, the school erupted in pride flags in every classroom. The teachers took the opportunity to teach about hate crimes and the history of gay liberation for an entire week. Kids went to school draped in pride flags. Literally every classroom had a flag in it.

Nobody rioted then, either. When a trans teenager came to the classroom to talk about himself and his transition, did a very open Q&A, nobody stormed the school board. So it goes both ways, and that is the miracle of it all, and that, I believe, is what we have lost.

Does this “say what you think” mentality also result in embarrassment, insult, and offense? Absolutely.

From the man I barely know who said, “You look nice today. You look a lot younger when you wear makeup,” to the teachers who point to my kids in front of the whole class and bring up stupid shit America is doing expecting my kid to explain, to the kids who’ve told my kids, for no apparent reason, “your hair is frizzy” or “you have a butt chin” to “you run funny” to the neighbor who, during a city hearing to discuss the extension on our house, said that bringing Mac and me into the room with the rest of the neighbors was like “bringing together Israel and Hamas,” — yes, it causes offense. It is not universally enjoyable.

People are expected to manage that, too. If it causes offense, say it. If it’s wrong, explain why. If you’re mad, be fucking mad.

If those kids believe neopronouns are not “fucking dumb,” they are more than welcome to explain why. They will be heard and considered. Every kid in that class will be heard and respected as a person whose opinion is as valid as anybody else’s.

Kids here are encouraged to debate and discuss everything, from the war in Palestine to Donald Trump to classroom policies. They are asked point blank during class what their opinion is on Putin or Israel or whatever else is happening, from ages 10-11. They watch “kid news” every morning in class and it is not sanitized. They know about death, rape, terrorism, racism, xenophobia, war, and when Sinterklaas arrives on his boat every November. My son was recently discussing with his friend what would happen if Trump leaves NATO. They’re both 10 years old. I am not joking. Children are encouraged to form an opinion, take a stand, defend it, and listen to others. My respect for this aspect of Dutch culture runs so deep I cannot find the words.

The expectation of de-centering oneself and considering the position of others extends to interpersonal relationships. There was a child in one of my kid’s classes being a bully to other kids. Nothing physical, but absolutely rude and aggressive. My daughter brought this up to the teacher. The teacher explained that the child has problems at home, and actually came to this school because he was bullied in the last school. The teacher then said, “Give it three months. Give him time to adjust. And if he’s a jerk after that, do whatever you want.”

My daughter, at 11 years old, was being asked to consider the complexity of antisocial behavior, to extend empathy, grace, and patience, but also, to form a clear boundary and take care of herself if the other person demonstrates an unwillingness to be kind. I never heard about any of this from the teacher. It wasn’t a big deal. My daughter told me about it.

I thought about how her individual feelings were set aside as the primary focus and she was asked to understand the bigger picture. She was asked to consider the other child’s situation, even though he was behaving badly. In other words, she was practicing a pragmatic approach to reality. It’s hard to exist with other people. They act badly sometimes. They hurt us. This can be complicated. There are also limits to what we will accept. We must balance all of these factors.

What does it mean to expect children to shoulder some offense and insult? To hold and grapple with big ideas and problems? To me, it means they are expected to learn how to live on earth. To assert themselves. To wrestle with nuance. It means they learn that they can shoulder offense and stand up for themselves.

This approach empowers future adults from within rather than imposing regulation upon them through a top-down power structure. It allows them to situate themselves squarely in rationality, reason, and self-determination rather than through the forced complacency resulting from authoritarian power.

The way children are raised in The Netherlands is relevant to a larger discussion of political discourse because what I’m really talking about is basic emotional maturity. It’s what we should be expected to do as adults. It’s realizing we are not made of porcelain and that running around policing ourselves constantly to never say anything “offensive” is a ridiculous task, primarily because it is impossible. We will always fail eventually. Why? Because offense exists within each of us subjectively. Creating an environment of “no offense,” then, by definition requires a ruling power to impose boundaries of discourse. Somebody has to decide for all of us what’s allowed. Who gets to do that? Of course we already do this, for example, laws against defamation, inciting violence, etc., but when we extend this control to all political discourse, when we work to impose our ideologies on others through bullying, intimidation, and attack, we are trying to destroy the innate human ability to think freely and subjectively. I believe that is why freedom of discourse is actually freedom in general. And why suppressing free expression ultimately fails.

We know this. We live it. The Dems get in power and they tell us all how we can speak. The Republicans get in power and they reverse it. We get our very own Battle of the Bans. An endless cycle of assertion and retaliation. Whoever’s in power gets to BAN ALL THE THINGS until the other guy wins, at which time he brings all that back and BANS ALL THE OTHER THINGS.

How will this ever succeed? What’s the end goal here? Do we just hope our side is always in control? Well then we better give up on the democracy thing and go full authoritarian. I’m not being hyperbolic. The only way to enforce strict rules of language and discourse is to hold all the power to do so, and never give it up.

BUT WHEN MY SIDE ACTS LIKE STALIN IT’S FINE is not a great approach.

So what’s the alternative?

I think often of what my advising professor told me in grad school just before I started teaching my own classes in 2013. Shocking nobody, I taught an extremely “progressive” syllabus. My first-year writing course was divided into four sections: gender, race, labor, and power. There was a lot of Foucault involved.

The truth is we thought we had the correct and enlightened ideas. I see now it was more complicated than that. But that’s what we’re talking about, aren’t we? How do we handle people who disagree with us? What do we do with opposing ideas? My professor told me students were going to say inappropriate, “offensive” things. And when they did, she instructed me to start asking questions. “Just keep asking questions that push further and further into the idea until it implodes.”

The idea was to lead the student to the source of the idea, which was usually, well, nothing at all. The idea usually came from a cultural story they’d adopted at some point in childhood. She instilled in me that I do not need to ban, shame or attack the student — rather, I needed to rely on the fact that bad ideas are bad fucking ideas, and they always show their hand if you interrogate far enough.

That was the only way the student with the “bad” idea would have any chance to learn something new. It is not about being “nice.” It is not because I enjoyed or approved of what the student was saying. Rather, the university is a place to present and challenge ideas. Even if it makes people uncomfortable. It’s the only approach that gets us the result we want.

If I shamed the student and sent them out of the room, what would happen? They would be enraged and full of a desire to retaliate, but the idea would remain unscathed. They would have been belittled and dismissed, and if the whole community treated them that way, they may stop speaking up, but again, the idea would remain untouched. Most likely, the student would dig in deeper, become more entrenched in their stance because now ego and anger are involved. The student may comply to stay in school, but they will leave that university hating “the other side,” armed with the same ideas but now paired with indignation, rage, and resentment. I made it so much more than an idea. I made it an attack on their character. I made it a battle. And in battle, we fight.

When I put into practice what my professor said, I learned very quickly that I was going to learn as much from my students as I was hopefully teaching them. By listening, thinking hard about their words, and forming questions, I was also challenging MY ideas. Did mine hold water? Could mine withstand interrogation? I was teaching in the 3rd most racially diverse areas of the United States (Sacramento, California). Usually there were more students of color in my classrooms than white students. I learned very fast that my role was to engage in a mutual learning process, to be an invitation to thinking, a presenter of ideas, and while I made clear where I stood (which always felt more honest to me than pretending I had no political stance), I encouraged the students to share everything they thought. And they did. It became a vibrant intellectual space, and I only had one very angry white male student walk out in a rage.

In all my years of teaching, I never had a student use a racial slur or state something beyond the pale. My students said things like “Of course women are biologically programmed to…” or “There is no more racism after the Civil Rights Movement,” or they would divert the conversation to the behavior of a victim if we read about rape — things like that. These are all potentially “offensive” and/or unpleasant opinions and cultural narratives that can and should be critiqued. If a student had used a slur or threatened or verbally attacked another student, I would not have had a little discussion in class to explore their ideas. As always, there is nuance, and it seems we are having a harder and harder time differentiating between actual threats to others and ideas we just don’t like. But that’s another essay.

Wait, no. I’m not done. I hear “No platform for fascists!” so often in defense of silencing certain opinions. And maybe that’s a real difference here. The Netherlands was occupied by actual fascists and endured actual fascistic terror, so they know that a person freely stating political or socially dissenting opinions is not fascist. It is in fact the opposite of that. The gentile Dutch spent many years faced with a decision of how they would handle Nazi occupiers: They could collaborate with the Nazis (and many did), conform externally but harbor silent resistance, or risk their lives in joining the underground resistance.

If they conformed externally but whispered anti-Nazi sentiments, they might get ratted out by the Dutch collaborators. If those who were part of the underground resistance got caught, they were unceremoniously shot in the head against a wall somewhere. There was no debate about it. Perhaps that’s why they value it so much now.

Or perhaps that’s why they don’t run around saying everything is fascist.

If we are going to block speech because it’s “fascist,” we better be really sure we know what that word means. If everything is fascist, nothing is, and I truly wonder when the left is going to figure that out. Nobody believes us anymore, guys.

Allowing even awful ideas to enter the room may be unpleasant, but it is the only way to avoid the endless cycle of forced complacency and rotating censorship based on whoever has power. If we silence debate, we get a bunch of people too terrified to share a single opinion or question that does not conform to the whole. But silencing debate does not make the questions go away. It only isolates and punishes those who think for themselves. It only encourages fake agreement and shallow repetition of mantras through bullying and intimidation. We don’t earn actual supporters. We create masses of people too scared to tell us they dissent. But the dissent remains. Eventually, it will explode. Eventually, they will use the sledgehammer we used on them to smash us to pieces.

Are we not watching that in the USA right now? Are we not experiencing the profound backlash and turning of the power?

We just watched Trump win through a movement he built almost entirely on “getting us back.” Petty, base retaliation. If it hurts liberals, they want it. If it’s the opposite of Biden, it’s good. And while Trump feeds his base the ego-food of sticking it to the libs, he and his billionaire friends run around destroying and rebuilding our nation into a technocratic hellscape that will so deeply harm the people who voted for him. Yet they will run gleefully into their own destruction because they’re effectively “owning the libs.” Ah, isn’t it satisfying to be on top?

I don’t think we were always this way. America’s commitment to freedom of speech is rare in this world. Perhaps that’s why we take it for granted. We have never experienced the alternative. I know I wasn’t afraid to share my dumbass ideas my first year of college in 1998. I know my professor pushed back but did not shame or scold me. I know I didn’t feel ostracized from the class. I know I didn’t feel closed off to the first feminist professor I encountered even though I staunchly disagreed with her. And I know that years later, when my own ideas aligned more closely with hers, I remembered the way she treated me as I touted my conservative ideas in her freshman course. She planted a seed of challenge. She caught me at a time when I was very loud and very young, but what she taught me was not to fear dissent – and, more specifically, that feminism was not something that would be used to attack and degrade me as a person. It was a new set of ideas for me, something separate that could be held and analyzed. I was not shut off from that analysis. I was part of it, invited into it. And when I was ready, I might end up somewhere new. When I got there, it would be mine.

She opened for me, really, the freedom to change.

my kids headed to their first day of Dutch school — lord what was to come we had no idea