Non-news media and the normalization of political actors.

Something that I’ve personally wrestled with since I moved to Denmark was the way in which certain political parties are given media attention where they wouldn’t in the US. I’ve wrestled with this because, on one hand, I find it discouraging that the founder of Denmark’s biggest nationalist party, a woman known for racist statements and rank islamophobia, gets to appear on fun apolitical tv programming. While on the other hand, there is something healthy to a political system that allows its members to live abstract lives outside of their purely political roles. And it’s not just nationalists that get to appear on these programs, it's all politicians from the furthest left all the way to the already mentioned furthest right.

So why does it still wrankle me every time I see a nationalist given the humanized treatment? Am I in the wrong for thinking these politicians’ rhetoric and policy positions are beyond the pale and they are therefore undeserving of apolitical TV time? I’ve tried to discuss this with other Danes who, mostly, don’t agree with these politicians but see little wrong in them getting such sweet screen time. They make the argument that every politician deserves to be shown for their total person, should they so wish. That, in order to keep a civil society, politicians need to be shown as people, like you and me. This argument is persuasive. Much of the polarization in the United States is so toxic that it is impossible for politicians to be shown in such a light. If an apolitical show wanted to have a well known (or even unknown politician) on their show, they would be inviting viewer backlash from probably a third of their audience. America’s polarization is so extreme that it’s impossible to humanize ‘the other side.’ So from this perspective, it seems a reasonable and healthy practice for democracy. 

However, something in me is not always convinced. I still find myself being take aback by the visage of Pia Kjaersgaard or Morten Messerschmidt on my TV as I try to enjoy Krejlerkongen or Fantastisk Hammerslag. Perhaps I’m being too sensitive. Perhaps, I’m too invested. Maybe I’m just playing identity politics. I am after all an immigrant in this country, and these politicians are the nationalist anti-immigrant front. It’s possible that I’m too wrapped up in my own self conception to view things neutrally (although, I’d argue that all politics is identity and that we all make political decisions based on who we are not objective reasoning). But it is also true that I’m a ‘good’ immigrant. I speak English as my native language and I come from America. It’s assumed that I’m here because I’m qualified and can help provide for Danish society. It’s those ‘other’ immigrants that these politicians legislate against. 

Part of me wants to wish that this sort of rhetoric just didn’t exist. That race baiting xenophobia wasn’t a common tactic in politics and that questions of immigration law didn’t come tied to forms of ethnic superiority. But that is, of course, just wishful thinking. As long as immigrants are not granted the same rights as citizens they will always be an easy target for populist politicians. Immigrants in most countries cannot vote and therefore have little political leverage against rhetorical attacks. If immigrants were granted voting rights, they would become another valuable voting block and you would hopefully see parties pander instead of put-down. But that’s again just wishful thinking on my part. 

I think what really bothers me about the way in which Danish TV gives space to xenophobic, nationalistic politicians on their apolitical programs is the normalization. Obviously a rich and opinion diverse liberal democracy should be home to a wide spectrum of views, but I don’t believe that should preclude those in positions of power from making value judgements about those views. The rhetoric and policy positions that parties like Dansk Folkeparti espouse hurt vulnerable communities and purposely throw impediments in the path towards integration. Having now lived in Denmark for four years, I’ve thought about what the path to citizenship would be like. Often I find myself questioning if citizenship is something that I want. There are things about Denmark that I admire, respect, and not least: love. But there are also deep value questions that I’m not sure I can square. Denmark, like most European countries, is content with the view that Denmark is for the Danes. What is a Dane? That’s a muddled question, but the answer is often ethnic. If one cannot be Danish without being ethnically Danish then what is the point of citizenship? Why should I desire to be something I can never be. 

Maybe my misgivings are about what it means to be a part of the Danish polity: who should and shouldn’t have a say in that polity. As an American, it took some time for me to come to terms with the idea that a first generation immigrant in Denmark is not a Dane. They may have citizenship (although not necessarily, Denmark doesn’t have birth-right citizenship), they may have been raised speaking Danish in their home. They may have attended Danish schooling, taken part in Danish customs, have Danish friends, but if they do not look the part, they simply are not Danish. The beauty of the United States has always been the immigrant ethos, the value driven identity. You are an American, not only because your passport says you are, but because you live by the values and creed that all Americans share. I don’t mean to overlook America’s long and deep history or racism, sexism, and xenophobia; but through those faults and at its best, American-ness is not defined by ethnicity but by creed. This is not the case in most other states including Denmark. 

Denmark is a welcoming country with a broad social safety net, expansive welfare state, and well run, trusted institutions. It is an example for other countries who desire to build a democratic political system that is responsive to the people’s will and respectful of differences. But it is also a country that doesn’t fully accept the role that immigrants and their children play in a civil society. Implicit in the normalization of nationalist political figures on TV is that foreigners are a worthy target of scorn, racism, hate. These politicians have a platform, they are elected to office. It is an editorial choice by the networks and the show producers to have these politicians on their programs and airwaves. The editorial choice should be clear to all immigrants: you may live here, you may work here, you may call this place home, but know that you are not one of us and you never will be.