Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Today we saw a textbook example of the rhetoric employed by the political green-left. This concerns the chair of the Green Party, Sofia Virta (Green), who commented on Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's (NCP) statement that the Finnish right wing government will not cut state spending beyond the previously decided nine billion euros.

Virta claimed that "this is purely an election speech" and suggested that the government would resume making spending cuts immediately after the county elections and municipal elections in April. She was supported in this by the chair of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Oras Tynkkynen, who speculated that "if the main government parties go into these elections without revealing everything about the policies they plan to pursue in the coming years, it is problematic for democracy."

Virta also made another odd comment. She claimed that Orpo's statements contradict earlier comments by Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) regarding budget cuts. This was based on a Green Party press release that alleged the Finance Minister had stated in December that further cuts would be needed in the spring budget negotiations.

In reality, however, Purra did not say this. She had earlier noted that additional savings could be made in the spring if necessary but recently added that "this political coalition does not appear to have the capability to identify significantly more savings."

The comments by the Greens and their leaders are an unfortunate example of a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in green-left rhetoric in recent years: outright lying to voters. 

The most striking example of this was seen a few years ago, when the then-chair of the Left Alliance's parliamentary group, Paavo Arhinmäki, told voters that the state never has to repay its debts and emphasized that Finland barely pays any interest on them. The truth, however, is that the Finnish government paid as much as 3 billion euros in interest alone in 2024, meaning that a third of the savings previously made by the state administration was spent solely on that.

However, there’s no need to wonder about the Greens' and the broader green-left's comments, as they have recently helped to boost their support. This is evident in the latest party approval poll, which indicates that the combined support for the governing coalition parties has dropped to 42.4%.

For this reason, rational people should focus less on the green-left’s rhetoric and more on their supporters. In other words, we must try to understand why they allow themselves to be swayed by deceptive rhetoric and, after enlightenment, address the problem one way or another.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

The Green Movement of Finland is Lost

As my esteemed reader knows, Finland currently has a right-wing government that came to power a little over a year ago. Its task is to address the economic distress created by the previous center-left government, which scattered taxpayers' money with abandon. While the results are still modest, decisions have been made, and over time they promise to balance the public budget and kickstart economic growth, which has stagnated for a decade and a half.

In this regard, the situation is interesting because the Finnish green-left has been unable to do anything but criticize the government's decisions, without offering any alternatives. The most intriguing case is that of the Green Party, which has over the years drifted to the far left.

Its chairwoman, Sofia Virta, has repeatedly stated that her practically sole goal is to bring down the government. In the same breath, she has addressed issues related to humanitarian immigration, such as street violence, claiming that "the Finns Party doesn’t want to solve these problems. Their support is based on them."

This is strange, because it is precisely the Finns Party that has wanted to limit humanitarian immigration to a level where newcomers can be integrated into Finnish society. They have also criticized the provision of unconditional – and thus demotivating – social benefits to spontaneous immigrants.

Additionally, Virta has claimed that "the prime minister probably doesn’t lose a second of sleep worrying about how to get health centers and public services to function." This is, of course, a blatant lie, as it was the previous government—of which the Greens were a part—that carried out a healthcare reform that led to the collapse of the system. The current government has been particularly focused on correcting the mistakes made earlier.

Each individual can draw their own conclusions about the reasons behind the Green Party chairwoman's rhetoric. Personally, I suspect it is a panicked, primal reaction to the fact that the Greens’ support, which at its peak had one in six Finns behind it, has now dropped to half of that.

Sofia Virta will have no political future if this trend doesn’t reverse during her tenure. And, of course, it’s impossible to imagine that happening with the methods she’s currently employing. This is because, in Finland, smearing political opponents has never been valued; instead, constructive proposals and presenting alternatives are appreciated.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?
Healthcare Services for Undocumented Immigrants are a Pull Factor for Harmful Immigration
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

Defiant children and Chinese palace dogs

A person equipped with common sense knows well that one should be cautious when dealing with someone larger and stronger than oneself. Finland operated with good success in this manner after the Second World War, as the Soviet Union and later Russia did not direct a military attack towards our country.

The same logic still applies, but with the difference that now Finland, as part of NATO, is stronger than Russia, which fails to understand its changed position. However, the matter is somewhat insignificant, as Russia's blustering holds no more significance than the tantrums of a defiant child to its father.

This, of course, does not mean that we should not approach our large eastern neighbor with goodwill and avoid unnecessary confrontation. Yet, we should not and must not yield any kind of authority over ourselves to the dictator whose behavior resembles that of a defiant child.

The analogy holds true in the sense that this individual seems as incapable of understanding his own position as a defiant child facing difficulties. In this regard, we received an excellent example from the news this morning, reporting how he lied about his army's actions in Ukraine as smoothly as a defiant child throwing stones at a window with a handful of rocks in hand amidst shattered glass.

Certainly, in world politics, there are figures even more ludicrous than the Russian dictator. One such person holds power in North Korea, resembling a mentally disturbed Chinese palace dog growling and baring its teeth at a wolfhound.

Or what should one think of his threats to thoroughly destroy the United States?

The original thought in Finnish:
Uhmaikäisiä ja kiinanpalatsikoiria

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Desperate cry of Russians
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
Incapable of learning but capable of genocide