Harry Geels: A nuanced analysis of J.D. Vance's speech
This column was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.
By Harry Geels
Social media was once again full of opposing views on J.D. Vance's lecture during the security summit in Munich. You were apparently either for or against it. But there is also a middle ground that is possibly even more sensational.
Vice-president J.D. Vance dropped a bombshell on February 14th during his speech at the security conference in Munich. The lecture caused quite a stir, from positive comments such as ‘fantastic’ (Geert Wilders) and ‘a breath of fresh air’ (Wierd Duk), to comparisons of Vance with a ‘manically lying prole of the new American oligarchy’ (Sander Schimmelpenninck) and ‘inappropriate lecturing’ (Kaja Kallas). As far as I am concerned, Vance's lecture contains three important messages, namely about democracy, freedom (of speech) and the market.
Democracy
The lion's share of Vance's lecture is about the state of democracy. He tries to build a bridge between the US and Europe by pointing out that both regions share democratic values. However, Vance sees Europe sliding downhill, mainly because European politicians do not listen to the opinion of many voters who are concerned about the large number of immigrants who have entered and are still entering the EU. He also takes the opportunity to take a swipe at Joe Biden, because this has also happened in the US.
What is striking is that Vance criticises the cancelled elections in Romania: ‘If your democracy can be destroyed by a few hundred thousand dollars of social media advertising from a foreign country [read Russia], then your democracy is not strong enough to begin with.’ He also stated that populist left-wing and right-wing parties would be excluded from debates, including the security debate that took place in Munich. According to Vance, we must enter into dialogue with all groups, even if their opinions do not coincide with those of the ‘commissars’.
Freedom
The concept of freedom (of speech) was also discussed. According to Vance, ‘it seems that Europe, hiding behind ugly words from the old Soviet era such as misinformation and disinformation, is expressing its displeasure with people who have a different opinion, or even worse, vote for a different party, or God forbid, ensure that those parties win an election’. Vance also seems to be dropping a bomb on NATO here. ‘How can we talk about common defence budgets if we don't even know what we want to defend in the first place?’
Vance also seems to suggest that social media should remain a sanctuary for freedom of expression and that, as mentioned before, we should not be so afraid of the opinions of others. Jokingly: ‘If American society can survive Greta Thunberg's reprimands for ten years, then Europe can also survive Elon Musk for a few months.’ A little later he continued: ‘If Europe lives in fear of [the opinion of] its own voters, then America can do little for Europe.
Free market
Indirectly, Vance's speech was also about the free market. First, he pointed to all the rules intended to control the media and prevent alleged censorship. Second, he stated that 'we cannot mandate innovation and creativity'. Thirdly, he referred to EU employees as ‘commissars’, a term that refers to officials of a communist party. Vance's message is that by protecting democratic institutions and freedoms, we must also safeguard an environment in which free markets can flourish.
The shocking middle ground
Looking at all the reactions to Vance's lecture, there seems to be no middle ground this time. Many fundamentally disagree on what democracy and freedom mean and how they can be protected. However, they are all guilty of the same thing. Because not only in Europe, as Vance rightly points out, are there forces at work that are putting pressure on our freedom and democracy. We see the same thing happening in the US, only along a different line, namely through the degeneration of the US into an oligarchy.
As explained earlier in a column entitled ‘Why is our (economic) freedom being undermined?’, we see that there are two geopolitical trends that undermine our freedom. From the ‘left’ we see the tendency towards centralisation and control, towards a kind of ‘globalist socialism’. From the ‘right’ we see the original idea of free markets overshooting towards an economy that is dominated by ever larger companies that cooperate with the government, culminating in the symbiosis between American Big Tech and the government.
Ultimately, these trends converge in something that I (and others) refer to as ‘corporate socialism’ (socialism for the rich). The warring camps are just not yet aware of this.
This article contains the personal opinion of Harry Geels