decisions on permanent status for up tonfour years.nIn the interim, the refugees receive statenallowances, free housing, and endlessnrounds of counseling, usually in “camps”nplaced in economically troubled smallntowns. Predictably, the good Swedishnburghers grow incensed over this lavishnsupport for refugees as a new leisure class,nwhile the latter nurse resentments over beingndenied the opportunity to work. Theneducational bureaucracy, meanwhile, hasndiverted vast sums into hemsprik schools,nwhere immigrant children are taught inntheir native tongues, in service to thenodd goal of a “multicultural” Sweden, anotherndubious American import. Indeed,nit is easy to see how “refugee resettlement”nhas grown into a huge, self-interestednbureaucracy. Binding this all together, anhysterical consensus exists in the Swedishnmedia that any criticism of existingnrefugee policy constitutes racism ornNazism of the worst sort.nNew Democracy is the only party withnthe courage to raise the issue. Its officialnplatform is, in fact, fairly modest: givenrefugees a quick decision on their status;nallow those accepted into the countrynto find jobs rather than receive a monthlynallowance; provide settlement loansnrather than grants; and close the hemsprdknschools, teaching refugee children insteadnin the Swedish language. For these commonsensenprescriptions, the party is attackednas “foreigner hating,” even bynModerate Party members who knownbetter. Undaunted, a few of the NewnDemocrats have gone further: John Bouvinncalls for a two-year hiatus in newnimmigration, while the country sorts outnthe existing mess.nA commonsense nationalism creeps intonNew Democracy’s program in othernways. Party member Richard Uhlenberg—ninternational engineer, filmmaker, and atnage 26 the second-youngest member ofnSweden’s Riksdag—describes his motivationnas a love for Sweden. “Just tonfly the Swedish flag today is seen by manynas racist, because it makes the immigrantsnfeel bad.” He noted that at a “name day”ncelebration which he had recently attendedn(a custom equivalent to a birthday),nthe joke was that the little Swedishnflag normally placed on the breakfastntray was covered by a brown paper bag. Henworries, too, about losing national identitynin the looming Eurocratic sea.nThis desire to save a Swedish identitynmight account for some of the contradictionsnfound in New Democracy’s plat­nform. On the one side, they chart a quicknreduction of the state sector from 57 ton47 percent of Gross Domestic Productnand support entry into the Common Market.nYet on the other, the party advocatesnsome increases in state expenditure, whenneither a special community is being “unjustlynhurt” (forty thousand old Swedishnpensioners living below the “existencenminimum”) or when Swedish folk culturenis at stake (the party would doublenSweden’s cultural budget for supportnof national museums, folk art, andnSwedish music). In line with its regionalistnorigins, the party also seeks to devolvenpower from Stockholm to thenprovinces and local communities.nNew Democracy has staked out ann”anti-politician” politics. By intent, onlynfour of their 25 Riksdag membersncome out of the public sector (in comparison,n90 percent of Social Democraticnand 75 percent of Moderate riksdagsmenndo). Wachtmeister uses elephants to symbolizenthe existing power centers in Sweden,nand small, busy creatures to representnthe insurgency of New Democracy.n”Five ants outnumber four elephants,”nreads one party slogan.nWhere the other major Swedish partiesnare overtly ideological, New Democracynis eclectic and opportunistic. Newnideas can enjoy a rapid rise, unhinderednby a fixed bureaucracy or a heavy institutionalnhistory. In late February, for example,nthe party announced a new reformnprogram for sickness insurance, one devisednby two private personnel directors,nand one more logical and economicalnthan the government alternative. Tongasps of horror. New Democrat AnnenSorenson recently denounced in thenRiksdag the goal of “gender equality”nas a distraction for real women withnreal problems. She is also drafting the party’snnew family policy program, predicatednon a general reduction in taxation (sona family can live on one income), familyntax relief in place of existing child allowances,nand a clampdown on bureaucraticn”social investigations” of families.nNear the end of my stay, I attendednNew Democracy’s Party Congress, annevent normally held once every threenyears. This “extra” meeting was designednto bring some organizational coherencento a movement still in its infancy. Aboutn750 delegates gathered on the ridge overlookingnSkovde, a mixed crowd in termsnof age, but predominantly male (much asnNew Democracy’s voters have been).nThese weren’t the yuppie Stockholmersnnnof the Moderate Party. They were, by andnlarge, the lumpen-bourgeoisie, resemblingnthe attendees at a Kiwanis conventionnin Indiana. The assembly exudednenergy and excitement, and talk of winningn20 percent of the vote in the 1994nelections. Party members clearly see thenSwedish establishment on the run, wherena combination of protest and prescriptionnjust might do the trick. Also present,nthough, were signs of the tensions thatndog any populist campaign. The sessionnopened with a 90-minute dialogue byn”Bert and Ian” designed in large part tonquiet local party officials seeking more policynauthority at the “grass roots.” ThenCount and the businessman warned thatnthe party must not lose its focus on issuesnof concern to the voters, by wasting energynon endless reorganizations. Tensionsnalso surfaced between the party’sn”more respectable” elements and the “rednecks.”nA surprising number of physicians,nfor example, are found in New Democracy;none of their number, Johan Brohult,na professor of medicine at StockholmnUniversity, serves as vice-chairman of thenparliamentary group. Bound into the nationalnmedical service, Swedish doctorsnare paid at the level of a well-tenurednnurse in the United States, and are understandablynrestless. Yet they are also uncomfortablenwith the “Svensson” (i.e.,n”Archie Bunker”) character of some partyncomrades. Several that I talked to apologizednin whispers for the “crazies” in thenparty, saying that it would take severalnyears to weed them out.nThe greatest danger to New Democracy’snfuture may be the mixed blessingnof being co-opted by the Moderates.nAlready, several of the more popular partynideas advanced last September havenbeen absorbed by the ruling coalition.nThis has challenged the party to be alwaysnone step ahead of the government, pushingnthe Moderates and their allies evernrightward (and occasionally leftward),nalways staking out new policy terrain.nHelpful, in this regard, has been the hystericalnhostility of the Liberals to NewnDemocracy. The former group, headednby old pol Bengt Westerberg, regulariyndenounces the New Democrats asn”racists.” Indeed, it was Westerberg’snmoralistic posturing that kept NewnDemocracy out of the coalition government.nIn fact, this was the finest giftnhe could give them: the Center-Rightngovernment survives only as it attractsnNew Democratic votes in the Riksdag,nbut the party bears no responsibility fornJUNE 1992/43n