When did the Social Democrats stop being “patriots”? 

As the Social Democrats' political communication increasingly revolves around security, values ​​and national cohesion, new tensions arise in the party's organization and ideological direction. When the future is described as a preservation of the present, communication risks becoming both exclusionary and visionless. A simplistic view of security and nationalistic communication shifts Social Democracy away from equality, global responsibility and a will to reform, which makes things worse for a party that has historically built its strength on inclusion, change and faith in the future.

 

Security as a nationalistic watchword

For a party that has historically built its strength on breadth and inclusion, collectivist and arbitrary rhetoric about values ​​is nothing to play with. Similar problems arise in Andersson's way of talking about security. Especially formulations along the lines of "putting the safety of the Swedish people first".

In practice, this is a rhetorical simplification of a complex reality that does not correspond to how security actually works today. Security is multi-level, partly because national security is integrated and intertwined with European security, global climate security, international law and then NATO entry collective transatlantic security. When security is framed as a national zero-sum game, communication becomes both unrealistic, discriminatory and exclusionary. 

One problem that arises is arbitrary interpretations of who counts as “Swedish” and which threats are considered legitimate, as in the case of the Tidö government’s communication about “lack of character”. In addition, voters are promised a security theater and false hopes regarding security where words become more important than what happens in practice. Last but not least, global and human security issues are pushed aside, as in the cases of the climate crisis, humanitarian migration and transition technology as artificial intelligence by S using concepts that are more reminiscent of nationalist mobilization than of left-wing cosmopolitanism.

When did the S stop being “patriots”? 

After the last one party congress Andersson stated, among other things, that “patriotism is back in the party”. This statement should be seen as one of the strangest and strangest things a party leader for S can make. Considering that patriotism is defined as a process where the individual experiences positive and loving feelings towards a country, but also a society such as a city or region, S has always been patriotic in the sense that the party has worked for Sweden through its political commitment. 

A possible interpretation of Andersson's strange statement is that she actually means that “nationalism is back in the party.” However, then an even more serious problem arises because nationalism Among other things, it is defined as a person having a special loyalty to a nation compared to other nations or units such as municipalities and unions. What does Andersson's communication want to say in relation to the EU, supranational politics and development as well as global problems and challenges concerning the climate, refugees and war? 

 

The “dusted off” ideas of nationalism 

Anderson also has pronounced It is said that nationalism has not always been or is something evil or bad and that no man is an island. This can be seen as a reasonable statement, but the combination of these statements exposes a great impossibility and contradiction. If no man is an island and if we all must cooperate, be in solidarity and follow laws, does this also apply to our entire world with all nations and all life forms in relation to our planet? 

Nationalist ideas, even when they are more civic-minded, are based precisely on the notion of special loyalties, where the nation is given precedence and priorities even at the expense of smaller or larger communities. In an era marked by global risks such as climate change, pandemics, economic crises, nationalism is both an intellectual and practical dead end. It may function as a short-term signaling policy and create feelings of community and cohesion, but offers few answers to the global problems, challenges and risks that actually shape people's lives.

That Andersson communicates in this way is partly due to inspiration from reasoning in and around the Think Tank Tiden, where what is presented as social democracy is combined more with nationalist ideas. The question is also, what does S gain by limiting its values ​​such as solidarity, community or sustainability to national belonging? There is also research which shows how social democratic parties in Europe have lost many voters to other progressive parties over the last 10-15 years precisely through adaptation to the policies and rhetoric of far-right parties.  

 

Status quo as a vision for the future

Another astonishing example in Andersson's communication is her response in interview via Dagens Nyheter from 2022 that she wants Sweden to be “more like Sweden” in ten years. For a formally progressive and reformist party, this is a strange message. The Social Democrats’ historical legitimacy and successes have rested on the promise of change such as better housing, stronger rights, modernized institutions and increased social mobility.

Describing the future as a preservation of the present instead signals stewardship, lack of change, and an absence of vision. It is language more associated with conservative politics than with a movement that grew by wanting more, not less. For young voters and politically engaged groups, such communication is interpreted as strange and peculiar. 

Historically, social democracy has not only fought for equality as an ideal of justice, but also understood its importance for social cohesion. Older and newer research shows that societies with higher levels of economic equality tend to be characterized by greater trust, tolerance, and openness. When people experience basic security, the need for exclusion, scapegoating, and identity-political polarization decreases.

At the same time, the alleged "is often used"lack of resources” as an argument against reforms, even though this rarely holds up to closer scrutiny. The state does not function like a household. Through fiscal policy, tax systems and central banks, money in and out of the economy. The decisive factor is therefore not whether financial resources exist, because they can always be created, but whether political priorities are given to human, industrial and natural resources. When politics becomes stuck in a technocratic management of the status quo, social democracy risks losing the very power that has historically defined the movement: the will to change, invest and mobilize faith in the future.

 

An organizational problem

This communication is not only understood from the party's organizational development. The Social Democrats, like other parties, have moved from being more inclusive popular movements and organizations with engaged member democracy to more professionalized, elitist, and centralized organizations. With fewer active members and greater reliance on strategic communication, more focus is placed on control, discipline, and the “party whip.”

The problem is that a party that demands cohesion, responsibility and a common set of values ​​from its citizens risks failing to create this within its own movement. When vision is lacking and participation is limited, moral demands on voters and citizens become unreasonable and strange.

 

A social democracy without direction?

Magdalena Andersson's political communication therefore appears as an expression of a deeper uncertainty within the Social Democrats: between the global and the national, between change and preservation, between popular movement and top-down control. The question is whether this line can really make the party broader, more inclusive and more relevant or whether it instead risks locking Social Democracy into a more conservative project without concrete visions for the future?