Magdalena Andersson and the communication dead end

In recent years, the Social Democrats have communicated more about issues such as migration, values ​​and cohesion. This is no coincidence, given that social policy developments since the late 2010s have been more about topics such as community, crime and security. In a political landscape where the Social Democrats have lost many voters and their previously more obvious position as a people's movement, the party leadership's communication has become increasingly important. At the same time, there are several reasons to question and criticize whether the direction that party leader Magdalena Andersson has chosen is politically and practically sustainable.

 

“Swedish values” and the exclusionary simplification

A recurring element in Magdalena Andersson's rhetoric is "Swedish values”. The problem is not that values ​​are discussed but how they are discussed and for whom. Values ​​are, according to the research fundamentally personal and dependent on a person's experiences and interactions throughout life. 

Sweden is often considered one of the world's most pluralistic, individualistic and secular societies. There has long been a greater differences in lifestyle, norms and political views. When a party leader speaks of “Swedish values” as something uniform, arbitrary and uniform, several problems arise simultaneously. 

For example, modern and more complex society is simplified into an imagined uniform and mythological interpretation of reality. Secondly, an unnecessary boundary is created between, on the one hand, those who are considered to belong to society and on the other hand those who do not. That boundary does not only run between people with a migration background and the category of foreign-born compared to people born in Sweden. Through words and communication, division is also created between social groups within what is called the majority population, such as in Sölvesborg and Södermalm. 

 

“Un-Swedish” Social Democratic voters? 

Research about political identities and values ​​shows that communication like “Swedish values” more often does more harm than good. Among other things, because it strengthens beliefs that are often found in people with latent authoritarian values ​​and a more exclusionary view of humanity. At the same time, that type of rhetoric becomes more negative and discouraging for those who protect pluralism, solidarity and inclusion. 

Thus, even voters who were born in Sweden, but think or vote “wrong”, end up outside the moral community when politicians talk about “Swedish values”. Andersson’s talk about values ​​thus affects more than just people born in Europe. Because ironically, it also concerns the Social Democrats’ own voters, regardless of whether they live in Hallunda or Halmstad. 

Recent years' research shows that progressive political parties like S have voters who are on both sides of the more socio-cultural and value-based political scale. GAL – TAN. It is a scale that is more about issues such as migration, lifestyles and culture where GAL stands for green, alternative, liberal while TAN stands for traditionalist, authoritarian, nationalist. In this way, social democratic communication ironically affects large parts of the working class's more conservative and collectivist voters when "Swedish values" are presented as something progressive or liberal. 

 

Transparency and democracy 

In Sweden, all residents have the right to choose their values ​​and be fluid in their political and other identities, even if we make unreasonable and contradictory choices. Nor is it smart to communicate about Swedishness as something liberal, since what Sweden will be like in the future will change. For example, it may be that green, ecological and climate-related values ​​such as sustainability will gain greater importance and anchorage in society. 

The thing is, people can't just change from conservative to progressive or from progressive to green. We can also, especially in times of crisis and social unrest, move towards more authoritarian, conservative and nationalist values. This is where the Social Democrats' contemporary communication becomes particularly problematic, partly because excessive communication about security often leads to more pessimistic and authoritarian behaviors in the population. 

Since values ​​are mobile, changeable and situational, it also becomes a crucial question how politics should be communicated and conveyed? Especially when it comes to safety, security and belonging. This is partly because values ​​do not move in a simple direction. 

In the next part, the analysis continues with how security has become a nationalist watchword and that the Social Democrats would instead benefit from a more reformist and optimistic agenda for the future.