The Danish way for the victory of the left

The victory of the Social Democrats in Denmark was achieved with a campaign with themes from left-wing classics: increase in public spending, also to create jobs, progressive taxes and therefore higher taxes for the richest; but also with the aim of confining immigrant arrivals, the theme with which the right is advancing all over the world. The social sensitivity of the middle class and even the poorest has been prompted, in recent times, by two concomitant facts: the global economic crisis and the migratory waves, which have highlighted the lack of preparation of the western states to the phenomenon. If, on the one hand, reception is considered a duty, and ethical behavior on the left, on the other it causes a reduction in the resources used for the welfare state, financed with heavy taxes on citizenship. In a regime of controlled accesses and economic prosperity, the impact of reception can be tolerated more or less well, but in a context of economic crisis, which involves the reduction of social benefits by the state, often combined with the lack of work, it is easy to trigger a popular resentment, which feeds the right-wing parties, which, once they have come to power, certainly operate a reduction in immigration, together, however, with policies to reduce social spending, to reduce workers' rights in the name of flexibility all in favor of companies. For the middle and popular classes, the right or populist parties represent the lesser evil, in a political context where left-wing parties are often perceived as traitors because they are the bearers of the richest classes and of finance. Furthermore, the issue of immigration proceeds together with that of security, and this represents an additional factor for the success of right-wing parties. The left for now has remained too static on these issues and, together, has lost its cultural identity, favoring, when the power has gone, liberal policies in open contrast with the needs of the classes it had to represent, coming to approve measures that penalized the class of workers in favor of that of finance and business. Perhaps the main mistake was to take the electoral contribution of the world of work anyway, even in any case, even when it was clearly against it. To reverse this trend, the Danish route must be followed, which is to combine the classic policies of the left with the need to keep the perimeter of those who can access the benefits of the welfare state to those who finance them practically unaltered. Even from the point of work this can avoid the unbalanced factors of competition of those who bring a labor at a lower price. However the migration problem remains in all its drama and its reasons remain to feed a phenomenon that, often, is a source of political blackmail towards the states and that is managed exclusively by criminals in a violent way. A policy like that of Denmark, for geographical reasons, is easier to implement than in countries such as Italy or Greece, which are closer to the territories from which traffic starts. Moreover the problems of the various conflicts in theaters of war or climatic emergencies, which will be the great protagonists of the future, impose a broader vision, which also includes a sort of prevention of the causes of migratory phenomena. No country, governed from the right or from the left, can long impose the choice of closure, without any alternative support, both practical and diplomatic, because this decision cannot be sustained for long without coordination at a global level of emergency management and of programming. Certainly in the short and medium term the politics of the Danish social democracy can be a viable path on the condition that during the stay in power the government of Copenhagen will work for solutions shared with other neighboring states and with those of immigration origin. Only in this way can the left's reconquest program in Denmark and the rest of the world be effective.