Sunday, November 02, 2008

Steen Weighs in on Mogens Glistrup

In his guest essay here a few days ago, our Danish correspondent TB included his opinions about the prominent and controversial Danish politician Mogens Glistrup, who died recently. After reading TB’s views, Steen, the proprietor of the excellent blog Snaphanen, was moved to send me a brief email about Mogens Glistrup:

But Glistrup, that’s a long and different discussion.

Mogens Glistrup
1. He was not the first.
2. His insight into Islam is yet to be proven. I have not seen it.
3. I tend to believe that he delayed an intelligent discussion on immigration for at least ten years, due to his primitive vocabulary.

He was a bit in the same mold as Enoch Powell in the UK, although he was highly experienced and sophisticated. Powell’s fear of racial hatred came from the British withdrawal from India, and the violence that followed, as you know better than I do.

Glistrup was a top lawyer, with no experience of reality. Moreover, he was a political illiterate.

Some accused him of being a psychopath, but he was quite the opposite. He had Asperger Syndrome; he harmed himself, not others. He ruined his business, his life, his party — everything. Politics was the last thing he should have gotten involved with.

He was a genius in a narrow field (law) and totally helpless in all others. He was a kind, but tragic figure.

I wrote this in Danish when he died. A lot of old women hated me for it — but they did not see my understanding of him in the piece. All the papers wrote that he was an “anarchist” — what I did was only to explain why he was exactly that. My more sophisticated friends liked the piece.

Glistrup did not do the resistance a great favour, although he set Pia Kjærsgaard off.

— Steen

For those who are interested, below the fold is Steen’s obituary for Mogens Glistrup (in Danish, with a little bit of Swedish):
- - - - - - - - -
Glistrup

Selvom jeg kun var 22 da Glistrup bragede ind på scenen, kunne jeg godt se der var noget uhjælpeligt infantilt ved ham. Han var vokset skævt. Noget var overudviklet, det meste andet underudviklet. Han faldt udenfor det psykologiske normalspektrum. Det underlige var, at så mange ikke kunne se det og stadig ikke kan, men det siger blot noget om folks dømmeskraft i al almindelighed. Når det i EB hedder “ ‘Glistrup var en stor politiker’, må jeg le råt og hjerteløst. Glistrup savnede stort set enhver af de kvaliteter, der er nødvendige bare for en almindelig rugbrøds-politiker. Han havde hverken fornemmelse for samarbejde, det politiske spil eller følelse for hvad der rørte sig i befolkningen. Derfor savnede han også de kvaliteter, en ordentlig populist må have. Når man nu er et juridisk geni, men eller håbløs på alle andre områder (han kunne ikke køre bil, trods kørekort, ikke koge et æg uden at det brændte på, at han ikke kunne ramme én ren tone i en sang, var sindbillede på en personlighed blottet for gehør. ) — så peger det hen imod at han var en højtfungerende autist, altså Aspergers Syndrom, hvad der ikke er noget degraderende i. Man kan være et udmærket menneske for det, det var Albert Einstein vist. Men så sandt som politik handler om det almene, så var det omtrent det sidste Glistrup skulle have kastet sig over. Kun er karriere som operasanger, kunne vel mislykkes mere ynkeligt for ham. Glistrup ville ikke det han kunne, og kunne ikke det han ville.

Han må i enestående grad have manglet personer i sin nærhed, der kunne beskytte ham mod sig selv og forhindre ham i at lægge sit liv, sin forretning, sit parti øde med megalomane fantasier om egne evner. Hvis han overhovedet kunne beskyttes. Han var ikke nogen “modig mand”, for han manglede tvivlens og frygtens nådegave, og hvis han overhovedet var martyr, var han det som et offer for sig selv. Men kedelig, det var han ikke, det er landbytossen pr. definition ikke. Hvordan nogle kunne “hade og afsky” ham, er mig ubegribeligt. Hvordan kan man hade et forvokset barn, der er en fange af sin skæbne ? Set udefra var Glistrup snarere en tragisk figur, en hjælpeløs Don Quijote, men sådan så han givetvis ikke sig selv.

Det sidste man kan spørge sig er: Glistrup var med til at sætte gang i kritikken af indvandringen, men jeg hælder til at han satte den igang på den forkerte fod og skadede sagen mere end han gavnede den. En mand der udtaler sig sådan her, er givetvis ikke den bedste at spille på hold med:

— Självklart är jag rasist. Det är alla goda danskar. Antingen är man rasist eller också är man landsförrädare, sa han då. (Berlingske 1999 via Expressen)

En ønskemodstander for enhver anstændighed. Når Politiken skriver “Mogens Glistrup blev en af de politikere, der har haft størst betydning for den politiske udvikling”, er det skudt helt ved siden af. Farverig og indflydelsesrig er ikke det samme. Han greb netop ikke sit øjeblik, fordi han ikke kunne, han formøblede alt og mere til, og det er altså ikke nok for eftertiden at Glistrup lærte Kjærsgaard lektien om, hvordan politik ikke skal drives. Glistrup forblev en kuriøs parentes. Han kom selv til at sørge for det. Det stod i kortene fra begyndelsen. (Der er masser af nekrologer at læse, de er behørigt venlige og orden.)

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, Steen is right in his description of Glistrup. But that does not change the fact that Glistrup paved the way for a lot of important people. People who still, as of this day, contribute significantly to this ideological 'battle'. Would they have been able to get into the parliament in such a massive number if it were not for Glistrup? I do not think so. The election in 1973 has been labelled 'The Landslide Election'. Glistrup made history by taking 16 % of the votes the first time he was eligible.
I did not like Glistrup either. I am tempted to say: Who did? But that is not the point here. Whether he was insane or pathetic or ugly or.....?
Glistrup was one of the most intelligent lawyers in Denmark (ever?). Many people agree on this. But he was also, as I wrote, a fool.
Nevertheless, he made history and allowed more skilled people to enter the heart of the Danish democracy. And that was my only point. And I think he deserves that credit.


@Steen
"Glistrup did not do the resistance a great favour, although he set Pia Kjærsgaard off."

If you take only the part "Glistrup......set Pia Kjærsgaard off." Was it not exactly what my point was?

Whether he, per se, damaged or benefited the course I will not speculate about.

@Steen "1.He was not the first."

No. Glistrup was not the first to see the danger in Islam. A lot of islam-critical voices have been heard before him. Among them the famous Danish writer Karen Blixen. But she, and many others with her, was not a politician. She was not a member of parliament.
Which brings us back to my reason for saying that I think Glistrup deserves some credit:
He paved the way for a lot of skilled people thereby making it possible for others to take the ideological battle into the Danish parliament. This has NOT happened in Sweden as well as in so many other countries. And this COULD MAYBE be the reason for why Denmark today is an ideological 'frontline state'.

Anonymous said...

Forgot:
@Steen "2. His insight into Islam is yet to be proven. I have not seen it."

When I wrote Baron a attached a link to a post written by Glistrup in 1991 (it is in Danish unfortunately and it was also posted along with what i wrote). I do not think that Glistrup could write this without a profound and comprehensive knowledge of what Islam is all about.

http://www.nomos-dk.dk/skraep/glistrup.htm

But whether it was new knowledge to him or something that he knew already in the 70'ies or before I have no idea.

Steen said...

TB: My article was an immediate reation to his death. Im sure we both noticed, that there was an immediate discussion in the press about his significance. Several writers had the same thought, that Glistrup was more and obstacle than a catalyst for an early discussion of immigration and islam. We will never know, though.

The 1973 election was mostly about income tax. Glistrups interest in immigration, did not appear before he was released from Horserød Prison in 1986. Both Krarup and Hasselbalch was already writing about it then.

What bothered me when he died was: The papers were not able to elaborate on the "anarchist Glistrup". So I did. I did not so much care about the more simple minds, that adored him as a genius and a prophet. A bit ironical, that critics of islam turn to another prophet, dont you think ? But I guess his role will be discussed for a long time to come.

Steen said...

Just to make sure: the comparison to the very learned and experienced Enoch Powell, is only on this point : to which degree did they hinder a public discussion for decades ?

I very much recommend BBC´s excellent documentary on Powell from this spring. I Tried to make danish television interested, but in vain, of course.


Mar 20
BBC: Enoch Powell - “Rivers of Blood”
http://snaphanen.dk/2008/03/20/onward-allah%C2%B4s-soldiers-2/

Yorkshireminer said...

Dear Steen

Glistrup was always something of a lose cannon, but perhaps being a Bornholmer had something to do with his character. Bornholmers tend to be more passionately Danish than the Danish, every Danish School child must know the story of the Panic peace of Roskilde where Denmark ceded all there Swedish provinces to Sweden including Bornholm and how the Bornholmer's took it back from the Swedes and how representatives sail from Bornholm to give it back too the Danish King and swear allegiance. Glistrup Grew up under the German occupation which was far more strict than in Denmark as a whole because Bornholm was of strategic importance. One wonders how he felt when the Russians invaded and killed many of his fellow Bornholmers. or how nervous he must have been when a combined American and British Fleet isolated the island to get the Russians to evacuate the island in accordance with the Yalta agreement. I met the good gentleman a couple of times in the Snapsting (the bar in the Danish parliament), he was always entertaining. I will certainly agree with you Steen that he was in many ways politically immature but he was great with the political one liners. He was certainly a breath of fresh air in Danish politics when he came onto the scene in the 70s. I cannot imagine many modern day politician's surviving sitting on a swing, over his swimming pool. his belly hanging over his swimming trunks, bald and with a set of teeth special designed for eating carrots through a tennis racket, advertising Antone Berg's marzipan and complaining about the Danish tax system. Outrageous he certainly was, but Aspergers syndrom is perhaps taking it a little too far. Perhaps the reason he was what he was is that he was a Bornhomer and instinctively recognized a totalitarian threat when he saw one, whether it was Communism or Islam, because of his early experiences, and just instinctively fired off a salvo irrespective of the consequences. I now gather a Bornholm Dairy is now actively reducing its exports too the Middle east and seeking markets elsewhere. I only wish you had translated the Swedish quote into English for the rest of the readers here on GoV. I will endeavor to translate it and I hope any Swedish readers will forgive me as my Swedish is rudimentary, but it is classical, dam the consequences, Glistrup. He instinctively knew how the Muslims and the E.U. would try and attack anyone who criticized them and basically said he didn't give a dam.

Quote :- Självklart är jag rasist. Det är alla goda danskar. Antingen är man rasist eller också är man landsförrädare, sa han då. (Berlingske 1999 via Expressen)

Translation:-

Naturally I am a racist, all good Danes are, either you are racist or you are a traitor, so is it.

Deep Regards

Yorkshire Miner

Conservative Swede said...

Glistrup:
Naturally I am a racist, all good Danes are, either you are racist or you are a traitor, so is it.

Sounds like Baron Bodissey, doesn't it? :-)

Yorkshireminer said...

Dear Conservative Swede,
I am afraid it doesn't sound like the Baron, it sounds like genuine Glistup, I can almost hear him now saying the words with that slight Swedish lilt which makes the Bornholm accent so distinctive. Perhaps the accent comes from all the Swedes that moved too the island in the mid 19th century and complained bitterly about being feed salmon more than twice a week, the changing face of poverty, salmon was poor mans fare then. It is only now that we are factory farming them that the working class can afford it.

Deep Regards

Yorkshire Miner

Conservative Swede said...

Well, I said it will a smiley. Glistrup and Bodissey definitely have very different styles.

That's salmon story is very good, btw.

Imagine the stories of poverty in Russia when they had nothing else to eat but Russian Caviar... There's got to be such stories somewhere.

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

During Dymphna's girlhood in Florida, it was shrimp. They were poor people's food in that place and time. I think she said ten cents a pound. Even adjusted for inflation, it makes my mouth water.

Lobster was probably the same way in Maine and Nova Scotia.

Anonymous said...

@Steen
“…Glistrup was more and obstacle than a catalyst…”
That is possible. No doubt about that. And yes I noticed the debate, but I must admit that I did not read much of it.

“…Both Krarup and Hasselbalch was already writing about it then…”
Yes. And both have contributed a lot to keep the debate going (but mostly from outside the parliament) In my opinion, these two guys have done an outstanding job. They never gave in to all the accusations of being racists and xenophobics etc. And they still dont.
Hasselbalch was a member of Den Danske Forening http://www.dendanskeforening.dk/index.asp?id=27 for many years. And still today writes about the threat from Islam. Søren Krarup was also a member of Den Danske Forening but had to leave after he was elected into the parliament in 2001. For many years he has contributed significantly.

“…A bit ironical, that critics of islam turn to another prophet, dont you think ?…”
Yes. Indeed. And embarrassing. One of Glistrup’s ‘properties’ was to attract fools. Guess that was one of the main reasons for Pia Kjærsgaard to take over and break out.

“…I very much recommend BBC´s excellent documentary on Powell from this spring…”
I saw it on your blog some time ago. Excellent. There you can talk about being a prophet with the abillity of knowing the future. :o)

I think that Glistrup will be debated for many, many years. No consensus will be reached though. He is too controversial. I think he will end up, when history has been written and evaluated 100-200 years from now, as being seen as the man who (as Henrik put it) opened some very important doors. Doors, effectively used by Kjærsgaard, Krarup, Langballe, Skaarup and many more.