From Liberal to Lost: A Political Journey through Dutch Politics

From Liberal to Lost: A Political Journey through Dutch Politics

When pragmatism forgets its principles, politics loses its soul.”

✍️ Author’s Note

This reflection is part of an ongoing personal series about political evolution, civic values, and the changing face of Dutch and European liberalism. It traces a lifetime of engagement — and eventual disillusionment — with the two main liberal parties in the Netherlands: VVD and D66. As always, it is written as both a witness account and a conversation with the times we live in.

📣 Reader Engagement Invitation

🗨️ What do you think?

Have liberal parties across Europe compromised too much in pursuit of the political middle? Is D66’s shift a sign of pragmatic renewal — or principled erosion?

A Political Confession

As a young man, I felt a strong affinity with the Dutch liberal party, the VVD — then a small, centre-right movement championing private enterprise and economic freedom. In the 1960s, under the leadership of Edzo Toxopeus, the VVD had only three seats in parliament. It was an elitist party with a clear liberal profile, positioned between the giants of post-war Dutch politics: socialism and confessionalism. I joined the party as a young liberal, drawn by its principles of individual responsibility and constitutional democracy.

A major shift came in 1971, when Hans Wiegel assumed the leadership. Charismatic and tactically astute, Wiegel brought a populist flair to the VVD. He had an uncanny ability to articulate the anxieties of the middle class, translating fear of socialism and resentment toward change into political currency. At the same time, he maintained a genteel image — posing as a respectable bourgeois while channelling popular discontent.

His finest role was undoubtedly as opposition leader against the Den Uyl cabinet (1973–1977), the most left-wing government in Dutch history. Den Uyl’s ideals — spreading power, knowledge, and wealth — were often debated at our family table, admired by some and viewed with suspicion by others. Under Wiegel, the VVD became a volkspartij — a people’s party — for the first time. At the time, I respected this transformation. In hindsight, however, I see it as the beginning of a long drift away from principled liberalism toward a politics driven more by sentiment than substance.

This shift accelerated in the 1990s under Frits Bolkestein, a former Shell executive whose leadership from 1990 to 1998 brought a harder edge to the party’s discourse. While Bolkestein was committed to market liberalism and economic growth, he also began questioning the virtues of multiculturalism and the deepening integration of the European Union. He supported the economic logic of the EU but raised concerns about the erosion of national sovereignty — particularly following the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the euro.

At the time, Bolkestein’s scepticism was controversial within the VVD. Today, it is often called “realism.” He was an early mentor to Geert Wilders, and many admired his brand of intellectual populism. But for those of us who believed in the European project — not just as an economic platform but as a civilizational idea — this turn was deeply troubling. I left the party.

So did many others, particularly those who believed that liberalism must be more than market ideology: that it must speak to justice, education, equal opportunity, and global cooperation. Many of us found a new political home in D66, the second liberal party of the Netherlands — socially progressive, pro-European, reform-oriented.

While sometimes labelled as elitist or urban, D66 stood for something essential: an open society, an independent judiciary, a clean economy, and a strong European Union. Its tone was optimistic, its priorities internationalist, its commitment to liberal democracy clear.

But even D66, it seems, is now changing course.

In recent months, Rob Jetten, the current party leader, has embarked on a strategic repositioning. Influenced by broader liberal discourse — including the recent book Abundance (2025) by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which advocates for institutional renewal and a “politics of plenty” — Jetten has sought to broaden D66’s appeal.

He now speaks less about Europe and more about “ordinary Dutch people.” His speeches highlight national pride — praising Olympic athletes, for example — and strike a more assertive tone on issues like housing, healthcare, and migration. The goal is clear: reclaim the political middle, where the largest bloc of voters resides.

In one sense, this is a rational move. In an age of populism and fragmentation, any party seeking survival must adapt. But adaptation without integrity becomes mimicry. In chasing the voter who once felt at home with the PVV, D66 now risks losing the voter who once felt at home in Europe.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the party’s new stance on asylum and migration. For the first time, D66 proposes processing asylum applications at European external borders and adopting a Canadian-style invitation model. The 1951 Refugee Convention should be “reconsidered” to reflect today’s realities, we are told — though what that truly means remains ambiguous.

The shift is cloaked in compassion: families with children must be protected from dangerous journeys. But the language reveals something deeper — with terms like “aso’s” (“thugs” a derogatory term for antisocials) creeping into the political vocabulary. This is not the language of principled liberalism. It is the language of electoral mimicry, and it echoes too closely the rhetoric of the far right.

D66 still speaks of the rule of law, of democracy, of a green economy. But something essential has been compromised. The tone has changed. The direction has changed. And the audience has changed.

I understand the pressure: polarization is reshaping European politics. But D66 was never meant to be a party of triangulation. It was meant to be a party of principles — even when unpopular. In seeking to broaden its base, the party is now aligning itself with positions that once stood in direct contradiction to its founding ideals.

And so, with regret — and no pleasure — I must say that my D66 vote is dubious.

---

🔚 A Closing Thought

Political loyalty is not an inheritance; it is a trust. It is earned, not presumed. And it is sustained not by chasing the majority, but by holding fast to the values that once gave a party its reason for being.

Netherlands, WJJH, 4.7.2025

📌 Blog Excerpt

Reflection on my political journey with Dutch liberal parties VVD and D66, expressing disillusionment with their shift towards pragmatism over principles. The evolution from principled liberalism to populism raises concerns about identity, compromising essential values for broader appeal, particularly in areas like migration and asylum policies.