Blog

Lessons From Vance’s Watershed Speech

Posted on 15/02/25 in Politics

J.D. Vance’s Munich speech seems to have shocked everyone, but it shouldn’t have. His attack on Europe, presumably cleared with his boss (or at least designed to impress him), centred around charges of a retreat from democratic values, and exclusion of legitimate views. It was rude, and unhelpful, but we had heard most of it before, if not in such a concentrated form.

More to the point, there was a kernel of truth in the criticism. It underlined lessons that the EU (and Britain) have had eight years to learn (eleven, if we take Russia’s first illegal invasion of Ukraine as the starting point), and have ignored.

Firstly, the United States, whoever is in the White House, is no longer a reliable ally. Even had Harris won in November, the MAGA movement would have remained an ongoing threat to Western unity. Hence global Western unity is dead already.

Second, Britain has a far more natural connection with Europe than America. We should be improving that relationship on as many fronts as possible. That means not only movement from Britain, but also from the EU, whose inflexible bureaucratic legalism has made rapprochement harder. It does not mean rejoining the EU, but rather constructive interaction between Britain, the various individual governments and the Commission.

Third, we Europeans have a common enemy – Russia. Since Russia does not directly threaten America, America won’t necessarily commit to helping us defend ourselves. We need far more resources devoted to the defence of Europe’s Eastern flank, and also far more creative thinking about how individual European nations can cooperate and develop synergetic defence policies. Given that the Russian economy is a rounding error compared to the European one, it is absurd that it is outspending us on defence. Ultimately, we need more recruits, more materiel, better cybersecurity, and a credible nuclear deterrent. The peace dividend is gone, and 2% of GDP won’t cut it.

Fourth, the European liberal capitalist democracies are the most successful societies in human history on virtually all measures. They need to be preserved – but not be free riding on American largesse. We have a joint identity that should be celebrated and shored up.

Fifth, the populist right, rejected by the European mainstream, is now overwhelmed by suitors, with the Trump administration and Russia competing for its favours. It will not go away. Far better, I believe, to try to swing at least some of the far right behind the project of shoring up European liberal democracy as a matter of patriotism and preserving European civilisation, rather than letting them stew on the fringe with their 15-30% of the vote, disrupting politics and undermining social trust. That means engaging with them, dropping the counterproductive cordon sanitaire. It means crafting an ecumenical political project to defend the liberal West from its many enemies that can motivate those of left and right, as well as the mainstream.

The two most important works on international relations at the moment are Christopher Coker’s The Rise of the Civilizational State, and Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations. They describe the world we are living in, where cosmopolitan universalism is not going to cut the mustard, and indeed has been largely outed as an offshoot of Western liberal thinking. This is a loss, but it need not be our loss, if we can reinterpret our liberalism as a local tradition that has contributed to the dramatic success of European societies, enabling them to adapt to and thrive in modernity – a tradition to be preserved, not undermined by illiberal identity politics of left or right. A tradition to which we should be loyal, and of which we should be proud.

European democracies are attractive – witness the large number of people who wish to live in them – prosperous and free. They are under threat, from within (by left wing ideologues and right wing populists alike) and without. We need to stand on our own feet and defend them, intellectually, economically and militarily. If the Americans want to help, then great, but even if they do, they cannot underwrite the cheques we need to write.