COMMENT: As a political commentator, I usually write about individual cases and debates about which there is controversy. Strong words, deep political division and preferably a little personal focus are ingredients that must be included in political comments.
A political comment is not the same as an editorial in which a specific position is taken. The commentary must primarily be an analysis of different points of view, weighed against what is best for society or individuals. A comment should give the readers a good basis and enough insight to form an independent opinion about the matter in question.
Sometimes it canalso for a political commentator, it is important to replace the daily rush to comment on individual matters with what is called having a “helicopter view”, i.e. a more general view of the society we live in. Be it at national or local level .
Are today’s politicians, for example become far too preoccupied with the pursuit of popularity, and what they perceive as political correctness, that they do not understand the times we live in? Has the distance between political correctness and people’s everyday life become too great? Is that why people no longer trust politicians to provide answers to the problems that need to be solved?
Is the room for diversity of opinion become too cramped in a liberal society that Norway wants to be? Has the risk for the person or persons stepping outside this space become too great in terms of the fear of being exposed to incitement, silence or accusations of infringement?
Is the distinction between unjustified personal attacks and what is actually legitimate social criticism in the process of being erased? What are all the recent revelations about politicians’ illegalities a sign of? Is it because we have become more aware of this now, or is it because we do not have good enough integration mechanisms beyond the legislation?
I mean to suspect that the inhabitants of Drammen are tired of only hearing about negative issues.
Plato once said: “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something”. This is a good reminder to choose your words with care and purpose.
We live in a world where there is a lot to be concerned about. War and conflicts, major environmental challenges, a strong increase in acts of violence, growing inequalities, economic problems, etc., etc. Do we therefore have to settle for the fact that we are heading for a society with more polarization, less trust and more unresolved problems?
The political environment here in Drammen differs, in my opinion, in many ways based on what we see elsewhere in Norway. I don’t experience such a great degree of polarization in very many other places. The winter’s debate about the so-called refugee decision is a grotesque example where the politicians in Drammen themselves are doing everything they can to destroy the town and the municipality’s reputation. It was not the citizens who used the strong words in that debate. Nor were the residents who reported their own municipality to the police.
That it is the Progressive Party’s still strong position in Drammen, which lurks in the background in most debates, there is no doubt about that.
Sometimes I wonder about the politicians believes that scaring the citizens as much as possible with the opinions of the opponents, instead of arguing for one’s own positions, creates a good society and trust in the political system. Talk nicely about yourself and don’t talk dirty about others, is something Drammen politicians should soon learn.
There are enough worries for everyone, if that is the goal. However, I mean to suspect that the inhabitants of Drammen are tired of only hearing about negative issues. Polarization and exclusively negative mentions of each other and each other’s opinions create fear, and if there is something people are now tired of, it is precisely being afraid, to quote former US first lady Michelle Obama.
