In the realm of policy scholarship, Sweden often finds itself under scrutiny – and rightly so. This Nordic nation refuses to toe the line set by its Scandinavian counterparts, instead opting for bold experimentation and unapologetic about-faces when necessary.
Take, for instance, its handling of the COVID-19 crisis. When most Western governments succumbed to draconian lockdowns and mask mandates, Sweden charted its own course. By embracing “herd immunity,” Sweden allowed life to continue relatively unhindered while still prioritizing public safety. As we reflect back, Sweden emerged victorious, boasting lower mortality rates compared to peer economies. Moreover, they didn’t suffer from devastating side effects like surging domestic violence, neglected healthcare access, or skyrocketing suicides, nor did students sacrifice precious learning hours.
Another remarkable pivot came when Sweden became the pioneering force against harmful gender transition procedures for minors. After initially condoning hormone therapies and surgeries, policymakers reversed gears upon realizing the questionable efficacy and potential long-term damage inflicted upon vulnerable youth. Today, psychological guidance takes precedence over invasive treatments, paving the way for like-minded reform across Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark) and beyond (UK, Netherlands).
Furthermore, last week saw another watershed moment as Sweden recorded net-negative immigration figures after five decades, marking a seismic shift away from open-door policies. According to the Ministry of Justice, “Sweden is on track to have the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997.” Meanwhile, applications plummeted alongside declining resident permit issuances. Intriguingly enough, individuals hailing from war-torn zones like Iraq, Somalia, and Syria began leaving in droves, eclipsing incoming arrivals.
What distinguishes Sweden isn’t merely its willingness to challenge prevailing dogma but its ability to adapt based on empirical observation. Despite maintaining exemplary social-welfare standards, exceptional gender parity indices, and trailblazing eco-policies, Stockholm recognized its generosity towards asylum seekers had taken a toll on national stability following the 2015 influx. With spiraling violent crimes, Sweden presently bears the ignominy of hosting the EU’s worst firearm fatality statistics. Neighboring states must contend with gangland spillage seeping onto their shores, too!
Here lies the essence of “Progressive Realism”: eschewing ideologically-driven rigidity in favor of data-based pragmatism. Driven neither by pride nor inflexibility, leaders should prioritize citizenry interests above lofty ideals when faced with mounting proof of tangible harm. As author Valerie M. Hudson astutely notes, “**[I]f your ideals lead you to implement policy that would harm your citizens, don’t do it. Or if you have started in that direction, then reverse course as soon as you see the harm being done. Don’t be proud, don’t be rigid — just reject doing harm to your people in the name of idealism.”
Indeed, America can learn volumes from Sweden’s paradigmatic commitment to responsive governance and reality-grounded decision-making.