Subscribe
J.D. Vance took no prisoners in his speech at the Munich Security Conference. He denounced the prosecution of Christians in England who dared to pray in proximity to abortion clinics – and in Scotland, where the same ultra-secular crackdown is illegal even in the confines of one’s own private home. He brought to surface the apprehension by German police of citizens who post anti-feminist content online. And he condemned the absurdity in Sweden, where an anti-Islam activist was convicted of incitement against a protected group, merely for burning a Quran.
Furthermore, he exposed the hypocrisy of the European liberal elite when they speak about upholding democratic and tolerant values, while censoring political dissent on sensitive topics such as immigration, and threatening to ban political parties with such platforms (referring to the ongoing debate about the AfD in Germany – a party which, as an aside, was not invited to Munich despite its popular support).
The audience’s obviously cold reception to Vance’s speech says all that one needs to know. At its core the vice president’s address was actually completely unobjectable. He acknowledged the necessity to achieve peace in the Ukraine, to foster continued friendship across the Atlantic, and to safeguard the common Western values – all of these are things that he has subsequently been accused of neglecting in liberal media and in the offended sector of the public debate afterwards.
In one of the countries criticised by Vance, Sweden, the reactions were entrenched in the very order the vice president mercilessly deconstructed in his speech. Foreign minister Maria Malmer Stenergard slammed Vance for, as a politician, reviewing an independent court verdict, with regards to the conviction of anti-Islam activist Salwan Najem. Ex-Prime Minister Carl Bildt snobbishly rejected Vance’s remarks on European freedom of speech as “irrelevant”. The chief director of major Swedish free trade and entrepreneurship think tank Timbro, PM Nilsson, declared that it is time for Europe and the US to part from each other, further claiming that the US is no longer a guardian of democracy.
A more intellectually honest crowd would have appreciated JD Vance’s critique as entirely valid. Surely no European politician believes it is in the proper order that European citizens anno 2025 can be arrested for mean tweets? How many European politicians are there who don’t agree the escalating chaos from decades of uncontrolled mass immigration is a failure?
Vance in his speech offered a hand to Europe to find a healthy, common path to once again walk alongside each other on. That Europe takes responsibility for its own energy and military security, and that it does not betray the freedoms that its citizens fought countless bloody wars to secure.
Instead, the European elite rejected that hand. From the initial reactions, it seems that our leaders do either not understand, and perhaps do not want, the freedom for our citizens to freely exercise traditional Christianity, criticise Islam, or ridicule particular ideological strains. Outside of these examples that Vance cited, there are countless instances where one truly does wonder who won the Cold War.
The media and political class that chooses not to take in Vance’s criticism appears rather emotionally-driven in its protests. The Munich conference was intended as a “safe space” for their political sensibilities, where they did not sign up to hear dissenting opinions – they expected near-universal mobilisation around the future of Ukraine. As such, it is no surprise that were offended when JD Vance strayed from the script, and pointed out the elephant in the room.
In contrast to what the vice president’s critics say, freedom of speech and other political liberties are not irrelevant to European security. As Vance points out, what is it we are defending if it is not our free democracies? If citizens are denied their right to voice their opinion and to support particular political agendas, what is going to drive them to defend their country against the enemies of democracy? These are aspects that have been ignored for far too long by the European elite, which believes words like “democratic values” are cosmetic rhetorics, and not something to live by.