D66 and the Cost of Compromise

D66 and the Cost of Compromise

✍️ Author’s Note

This reflection continues my exploration of the Dutch political landscape and my evolving relationship with D66 — a party I have long supported but no longer recognise fully. It is both a personal confession and a commentary on the shifting balance between principle and populism in contemporary Dutch politics.

In my recent post Democracy Without Conviction, I reflected on Dutch politics and questioned the presence of conviction in public life. Earlier, in D66: Between Principle and Pragmatism, I wondered where the party was heading. We did not have to wait long — this week’s elections provided the answer.

In this election, I voted for D66. As a member, I could hardly do otherwise. Yet my vote was not cast with enthusiasm, but rather from a sense of duty — because D66 still stands closer to the liberal-democratic tradition that has guided me through life. Democracy and the rule of law must be defended, even when the choice feels imperfect.

Rob Jetten, the political leader of D66, deserves congratulations for achieving the best election result in the party’s history. His campaign confronted the “elephant in the room” — Geert Wilders and the extreme-right PVV — with optimism and energy. The “We can do this” slogan, inspired by Barack Obama’s Yes we can, was positive and forward-looking. For that, Jetten deserves credit — at least in the short term.

But politics runs in rhythms of boom and bust, and optimism fades quickly when promises collide with governing realities. The D66 campaign, with its broad optimism and panoramic promises — such as building ten new cities — was not grounded in the sober discussion of real problems and their solutions. It aimed to broaden appeal, particularly among voters uneasy with open borders, and in doing so it moved away from the party’s intellectual and liberal roots.

Let me be frank: my enthusiasm has not grown; it has diminished. D66, once the principled voice of liberalism and pro-European thought, now bends in the wind. The party now speaks of reconsidering the Refugee Convention, processing asylum claims at Europe’s borders, and even replacing European symbols with Dutch flags. Jetten still invokes democracy, rule of law, and a green economy — but the tone has shifted. The language of inclusion has given way to the rhetoric of populist realism. Climate policy has retreated behind themes of housing, affordability, and migration.

I joined D66 because it represented nuance and European engagement — not populist slogans. I did not join to “howl with the populist foxes,” nor to scapegoat refugees for political gain. Something vital was lost when Jetten began referring to “aso’s” (antisocials) and “rotten apples” among immigrants. Words matter, and these words carry the echo of opportunism.

In front of enormous Dutch flags, Jetten’s rallies evoked a national populist atmosphere that helped attract voters from both left and right — but it left me uneasy. I joined D66 because it was a European, liberal, and principled party. I did not join to share a coalition table with Wilders sympathisers or to see D66 reduced to a secondary partner in a populist government.

While I still have some sympathy for the economic and fiscal discipline traditionally associated with the VVD, that party too has lost its liberal compass. Under Dilan Yeşilgöz, the VVD has drifted toward the populist right, embracing Wilders and adopting his language on immigration.

Nor do I believe D66 should participate in a hard-right coalition with the VVD, CDA, and JA21 — especially if the VVD refuses to consider a centrist alternative. JA21, whose founders once belonged to Thierry Baudet’s extreme-right FvD, does not represent the liberal democratic spirit that D66 was founded to defend.

Politics is, by its nature, the art of compromise. But there are limits. When the defence of democracy, Europe, and liberal values becomes negotiable, compromise turns into surrender.

William J J Houtzager, Aka WJJH, November, 2025

🟦 Blog Excerpt

This reflection continues my exploration of Dutch politics and my uneasy bond with D66 — a party I once admired for its liberal clarity and European conviction. After the recent elections, I find myself a reluctant supporter, torn between loyalty to principle and disillusionment with the party’s populist turn. At stake is not only the soul of D66, but the very meaning of liberal democracy in the Netherlands.