Riddle: What do the following statements have in common? “That is a red line, but I will never drop Israel.” (Joe Biden in March 2024 on the invasion of Rafah.)
NSC will collaborate with the PVV, but does ‘zero comma zero concessions’ on the rule of law (Pieter Omtzigt at the NSC party congress, April 2024.)
“Destroy Hamas and free the hostages.” (Israel’s war goals in Gaza.)
“Keeping the very best care future -proof: we give space to good and loving care, but also prioritize and make fair the sharp choices to secure the affordability and quality of our care for the future.” (Published from last week VVD program.)
Answer: In every statement, things are mentioned that exclude each other. A red line only works if you are willing to attach consequences to it. Working together with an anti-right-wing politician damages the rule of law. All hostages liberate does not go together with the destroying of Hamas – not for nothing demonstrating family members of the hostages for a deal for a deal with the terror movement. And sharp choices (read: cutbacks) make care less good.
‘You can’t have your cake and eat it too“This phenomenon is called: you can’t have everything. (The sentence turns out to be a detailed one Wikipedia page to have: I learned that the expression originally read ‘You can’t eat your cake and have it too‘, which is actually more logical since the cake is actually no longer there after dinner.)
Earlier I wrote a column about the opposite: the apparent contradiction. In that case, people are wrong to exclude two things. This week there was another: the Amsterdam Ja21 councilor Cas van Berkel claimed against De Telegraaf The fact that purchased gay acceptance does not come “because of the conservative wind or Andrew Tate, but by young, Islamic men.” As if not both can be wrong. Andrew Tate himself even claims to have converted to Islam.
There is also a suitable sentence for the apparent contradiction, I wrote in that column: Por qué no loose dos?. The sentence comes from a Spanish taco advertising in which a family has to choose between hard and soft tacos. “Por qué no loose dos?“, A girl asks: why not both? It is still my motto, because various causes, consequences, wishes and opinions can often exist next to each other. Choosing only becomes inevitable when two things exclude each other, such as being loyal to Israel and to international law, or eating and storing a cake.
Just practice. I own a book entitled De Wolf: threat or enrichment?. This is an apparent contradiction, or a case Taco: De Wolf can threat and enrich the country at the same time, by biting six-year-old children on the one hand (of which ‘Problemwolf Bram’ this week is suspected) And on the other hand, for example, to maintain the deer and boar population. That is different with the next statement, of the page Van GroenLinks Province of Utrecht: “De Wolf is not a danger for people and is good for Utrecht nature.” This is an internally contradictory promise, or a case cake: as if a top predator can put things in order in the food chain without any threat to humans. Even when it comes to exceptions, such as now with ‘problem wolf Bram’, you cannot say that ‘the wolf is not a danger to people’. If that was the case, people were not advised to avoid the surroundings of Austerlitz.
With the elections approaching, it is important to recognize the fallen cake and taco. Many false contradictions will come by again. Politicians will claim that the housing shortage is completely due to immigration or entirely through the housing market policy of the past decades. They will bicker about whether people benefit from sustainability policy or should return. These are fallen taco: it can all be going on at the same time.
And we will also see the internally contradictory promises. Politicians are going to pretend that the protection of human rights and doing business with dictators are going well together; As if migration can be substantially limited while all greenhouses, slaughterhouses and distribution centers continue to exist; As if no one is financially deteriorating through investments in Defense. These are fallen cake: if you choose one, you hand in to the other.
Rhetoric like this only works with an uncritical audience. So all we have to do voters is to listen well and wonder: can this (also) both be?
Floor Rusman ([email protected]) is editor of NRC