The 61st Security Conference held being held in Munich from 14 to 16 February 2025 is aimed at providing opportunities for the ruling European elites to discuss the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, to excoriate the regime of President Vladimir Putin, and to strengthen the Nato alliance. Vice-President J D Vance represented the United States. Although he mentioned the need for an end to the Ukraine conflict, he mainly talked about the ‘threat from within’. Specifically, he lamented the ‘retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values shared with the United States of America’. He refreshingly referred to the blessings of liberty, and ‘the freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, invent, to build’. He reminded his audience that ‘you can’t mandate innovation or creativity just as you can’t force people what to think, what to feel, or what to believe’.
For sure, Vance berated Europe and Britain for their spectacular disregard of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He referred to the prosecution of an Army veteran for ‘the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own’. Vance also reminded his audience of the distribution of a letter by the Scottish government which urged citizens ‘to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime in Britain and across Europe’ and indicated that even praying at home in private ‘may amount to breaking the law’. Vance criticised the annulment, in December 2024, of the Romanian elections, on the flimsy suspicions, raised by an intelligence agency, that ‘Russian disinformation’ had compromised the elections. Vance said that ‘if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with’.
Vance also evaluated Europe’s immigration policies which have been responsible for changing the face of Western Europe by admitting people who do not share European values and often hate the European society in which they live. He instanced the dreadful event that happened in Munich just the day before, when an Afghan refugee, drove his car into a crowd and injured many people, as an example of the foolishness of admitting people who hate democracy.
If Vance is right, his examples of unpalatable developments hostile to free speech and freedom of religion have the capacity to destroy democracy in Western Europe. Moreover, in allowing unbridled immigration, Europe’s leaders facilitate the disintegration of the social fabric of European societies.
Vance’s address was roundly criticized by his European audience because it never expected a speaker to challenge their elite views. There was only lukewarm applause when he finished speaking. Boris Pistorius, Germany’s Defence Minister said that Vance’s assessment of Western Europe’s dismemberment of free speech and freedom of religion, and his description of the state of democracy in Europe, were unacceptable. Pistorius, attempting to bolster his assertion, referred to the ability of the Alternative for Germany party (AfD) to participate in the election campaign, just like any other party. However, Pistorius’s comment is self-serving because the political elites in European countries maintain a ‘firewall’ to keep far right-wing parties out of power, by agreeing to never do business with them or to welcome them as partners in government. Although Article 21(2) of Germany’s Basic Law – the German Constitution which stipulates that parties that ‘seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order … shall be unconstitutional’ supports such agreement, it is nevertheless a stunning repudiation of the basic principle that electors decide what kind of government they will have.
What are we to make of Vance’s address? What are the lessons that we can take away? In my opinion, the most important lesson is that democracy cannot flourish if voters’ wishes are crushed by elite political parties that construct a firewall to ensure that right-wing parties never achieve any power, or if conservative ideas are not valued, or even tolerated, in society. History reveals that firewalls themselves are responsible for fomenting the rise of right-wing parties because they encourage people to rebel against the disdainful ‘we-know-better’ mentality of the ruling political elites. Sobering examples are offered by the rise of the AfD party in Germany, now supported by a staggering 22 per cent of German voters, the second biggest party in Germany, or the 27.2 per cent scored by the ‘Vlaams Belang’ (Flemish Interest) party in Belgium, the rise of Reform in Great Britain, the spectacular success of Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands, and others.
Of course, the political elites will ask what society’s response should be when these parties allegedly display ‘totalitarian tendencies’? The answer is more speech, not less, to enable people to dissect these tendencies, and to evaluate them, without fear or favour, in the public forum.
It is instructive that participants at the Conference characterised Vance’s speech as ‘unacceptable’ because they viewed his speech as implying that Western Europe is no better than totalitarian regimes where freedom of speech is strictly controlled or prohibited. However, in repressing the will of the people, trampling free speech and freedom of religion, people might be inclined to dissent and vote for ‘populist’ parties. The attractiveness of a political party is linked to its respect for free speech: the greater the repression of free speech, the greater the likelihood that allegedly right-wing parties will appeal to the voting public. If so, it is foolish to advocate for a democratic form of government, and at the same time to hamstring it with conditions and restrictions so that it cannot flourish. According to Vice President Vance, this is the enemy within that is destroying free societies. Agreeing with Vance, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the will of the people could be thwarted by political parties vowing never to do business with certain parties based on the ideas that they propagate. These parties are now stronger than ever, and definitively in the ascendancy. Therefore, all ideas should be allowed to blossom in the marketplace of ideas. Surely, the truth, or something that comes close to the truth, will then emerge.
It is refreshing that Vice President Vance disapproves of the banning of lawmakers from both the left and the right from participating in the 61st Security Conference in Munich. Vance opined that this ban ‘looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation, who simply don’t like the idea that someone with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion’.
So, although the Europeans know what they are themselves defending from, they have lost the ability to know what they are defending themselves for.
