Red lines in politics?

 There is a political party in Sweden right now that effectively holds the deciding vote. It is up to them to determine which of the two blocs will govern Sweden.

The party is the Centre Party—a traditional agrarian party that has always belonged to the conservative side of the political spectrum.

This changed a few years ago when the conservative side began seeking to cooperate with a relatively new party, the Sweden Democrats. Most people viewed this party as nationalist and xenophobic; for the Centre Party, however, it was a step too far, and they chose instead to cooperate with the Left.

I am not here to defend the Sweden Democrats, nor do I sympathise with them, but for a great many Swedes, the whole thing feels like a massive overreaction by the Left.

A coalition of various right-wing parties, including the Sweden Democrats, has now governed Sweden for four years, and things have gone well.

However, the Centre Party absolutely does not want to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats—or, for that matter, with the far left.

So what is to be done? Why this red line!

The Centre Party considers the Sweden Democrats too extreme—not a party like any other—and while it is true that over the years they have put forward controversial proposals and had odd individuals in their ranks, a good deal of what they have advocated is now shared by the majority.

An extremist party? What about the Centre Party, then?

If you go back to the 1930s, many in that party sympathised with the Nazis—though, admittedly, that is history. However, in modern times, the Centre Party has put forward various strange proposals, such as:

Polygamy: The proposal to allow marriage between more than two people. It wasn't just a large number of people; some even spoke about bestiality.

The then Minister for Agriculture, Eskil Erlandsson (C), debated against the Social Democrats, who were calling for a total ban on bestiality. Erlandsson argued that a total ban would create difficult legal issues regarding where to draw the line.

The controversial quote: To illustrate the difficulties involved in new legislation, Erlandsson asked from the podium: "Should it be permissible to caress a female dog’s teats out of affection, or should that count as sexual use of an animal?"

Open immigration: Completely abolishing regulated borders and allowing free immigration to Sweden.

Abolishing compulsory school attendance: Replacing compulsory school attendance with a "compulsory education requirement," which in practice would make attending school voluntary, provided the knowledge requirements were met.

So, who is the one being extreme?

And is it possible to cooperate with the far-left—which, just a month ago, expelled over 30 people who are openly antisemitic and romanticise terrorism? Please pray for Sweden.