Europe has been exposed to formidable challenges in recent times. These challenges have been of many sorts. Some are derived from mass migration, which began a long time ago but which culminated several years ago with economic, political, and moral issues. That particular challenge is not yet over. A newer challenge — one that has hit the whole of mankind — is the appearance of the Covid-19 pandemic at the beginning of this year. This challenge is not yet over either.
The toughest and most vital challenge facing us, however, has to do with the future of Europe — particularly given the ongoing internal political debates in the EU about its major political goals. Many observers say that after the millennium, something went wrong with the ‘European project.’ And various manifestos, books, and articles have argued that Europe is at a crossroads and that it has to reconsider in which direction to go — both in terms of its immediate future, as well as its long-time strategies and policy objectives.
Towards the end of his life, Helmut Kohl, in his 2014 Aus Sorge um Europa: Ein Appell (“Out of Concern for Europe: An Appeal”) clearly expressed a profound concern for the state of Europe. He wrote that “we always need to put the following questions to ourselves: where are we from, what have we achieved so far, is there an alternative, [and] what more do we have to do?” Let us see what answers we can give to such questions.
Original goals of the ‘founding fathers’
Europe is more than just a continent. Europe — particularly the European Union as conceived by its ‘founding fathers’ — has no analogue today. The goals and original intentions of the European project can be easily overlooked under today’s daily pressures and narrow interests, particularly given the rash ideas and ideologies forcefully put forward by ‘political seers.’ But our primary duty is to remain faithful to the original intent of the ‘founders,’ all of whom wanted to build on the lessons from the two world wars — and on the basis of peace and freedom, create a new framework for the coexistence of the nations of Europe.
Despite the many differences between the views of the various ‘founding fathers’ — such as Spaak, Schuman, Adenauer, de Gasperi, and Monnet — they all shared a belief in the necessity of security for the people of Europe — in terms of physical, military, and economic defence. They all also shared a strong conviction that the nation-state should remain the foundation of any successful post-war European order. Additionally, all of them (especially Schuman) argued on behalf of ‘democracy,’ since the ‘representation of the people’ is the only political arrangement that responds to the necessities of modern politics.
Today, if anyone on the political right happens to refer to ‘the people,’ he is immediately labelled a ‘populist.’ But this reveals a serious (and widespread) misconception — that democracy is somehow synonymous with liberalism. While modern liberalism can indeed be associated with certain conceptions of elitism, or individual rights, or any number of ‘emancipatory’ political slogans, ‘democratic egalitarianism’ of the kind often embraced by today’s populism is hardly one of its qualities.
In fact, what we are confronted with today in Western Europe is the political and institutional dominance of the ideology of ‘liberalism’ — a liberalism that no longer believes in the ‘representation of the people.’ Moreover, it is a liberalism that denies the need of having both reason and faith, instead deriving its arguments from an Enlightenment that is heavily slanted towards the dominance of abstract Reason. This was one of the main features of the intellectual development of modern Europe.
But we cannot afford to fall victim to any ideology — least of all, liberalism — because we shall then lose our freedom. Reality or realism — that is, the wisdom imparted by the rich reservoir of past experience — is the only reliable compass to help us make good decisions. Ideologies, on the other hand, are narrow sets of ideas which claim they know what truth is. Yet none of them knows truth! So, in order to resist the alluring siren songs of today’s ideologies, we must ask ourselves: what is good and what is evil? This should help illuminate the real issue: that the existence of European liberalism means that Europe’s past is not necessarily an asset but rather an impediment.
This leads to a series of other questions including: whether individual interests are always preferable to the interests of communities; whether the ‘rights’ of the individual are superior to the law of all; whether a political ‘empire’ is preferable to the nation-state and autonomous regions; whether ‘the good life’ is imaginable without Christianity (or the concept of God); whether government — as the institutionalization and representation of power — is always and without qualification to be seen with suspicion; whether the ‘conquest of nature’ in our quest for ‘progress’ is ever possible without also destroying our humanity; and, most fundamentally, whether faith is subordinate to reason.
The answers to these and other related questions can help determine not only whether the European Union in the 21st century will end up being beaten in global competition, but also whether it will walk away with the shame of also having given up its culture and lost its vital, civilizing force. (This would actually be the very opposite of what the ‘founding fathers’ believed in.) These are very real risks. And they may be why Europe as a whole seems so uncertain about its goals and the direction of its actions. It has consistently failed to respond adequately to new challenges — whether they be economic or related to mass migration, cultural identity, or the recent coronavirus pandemic.
Impact of mass migration
Migration is an issue that has considerably more influence than others on how our civilization survives. It has to do with more than just ‘inclusion’ or ‘exclusion,’ topics so dear to leftists, both liberal and Marxian. European leftists have been noisily proud of their attitude: tolerant, open, and inclusive of every other culture, every man, and every moral conviction — so long as they, too, are ready to celebrate ‘liberal ideals.’ But this is a narrow ideological view that sees human beings not only as equal but as instrumental to the rational purposes of Western man and civilization. This is a fatal error!
Members of other cultures come to Europe not to discuss the merits of our lifestyle or our civilizational achievements but in search of affluence. To non-Europeans, a safe and ‘comfortable life’ are the most attractive features of the European life. They are not interested in — nor do they necessarily consider — the efforts of generations of Europeans over the centuries to create and provide that safe and comfortable life for citizens. It is, therefore, a fatal error to suppose that immigrants from other cultures can — and would even want to — accept the rationale on which our civilization is built.
Mass migration is about to overtake our civilization and change living conditions forever — across Europe and at the local level. Today’s immigrants want to live their lives in Europe — but they want their lives to be based on the precepts of their original culture, with its non-European beliefs and interpretation of the world. Mass migration is not a mere sum of individuals; rather, it creates new mass groups of people, all of whom wish to change conditions in Europe — and change our way of life. There is so far no evidence whatsoever demonstrating the success of mingling cultures and lifestyles that have entirely different beliefs and convictions.
Christianity and “illiberalism”
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, in response to the dominance of liberal ideology, introduced the concept of an ‘illiberal democracy’ when he spoke of the “illiberal state” in 2014 and of “illiberal thought” in 2018. On the latter occasion, he proposed the idea of “Christian democracy” as an alternative to liberal democracy. As a politician, he creatively and deliberatively shunned the traditional social science meaning of “illiberalism” and advanced his own understanding.
Unless one truly wishes for a complete disruption of the EU (a stance which is thankfully rare), Europe desperately needs the original goals of the EU to be amended — in accordance with the necessities of the times in which we live. Europe can only survive if it clarifies what goals it wants for all the citizens of Europe and members of this civilization. This requires that we first preserve the greatest achievements of post-war Europe — which are ‘peace’ and ‘freedom.’
The former — peace — can be demonstrated much more easily, since we can simply point to the self-evident fact that there has been no total war in Europe since World War II. But the latter — freedom — is a more difficult thing to demonstrate. Freedom, first of all, has several interpretations and justifications. Modern freedom is exclusively based on political ideas and a certain political understanding. The Ancient Greek and Christian understanding of freedom, on the other hand, relies upon a much broader conception of freedom — one that is ultimately derived from the concept of ‘free will’ as first described by St. Augustine in De libero arbitrio. The modern concept of freedom took this Ancient and Christian point of view — but completely discarded the concept of ‘evil’ on which it is based.
The most important distinction between the Ancient and modern European conceptions of ‘freedom’ is found in their entirely divergent starting points: the ‘classical’ — that is, Ancient and Christian — view regards ‘evil’ as marking the very beginning of thinking about man’s absolute freedom. The modern view, in contrast, starts from a political problem, which is the freedom of my body — or freedom from and immunity to those who wield power. This is the hub of the essential conflict between the Ancient and modern conception of freedom.
Political freedom — liberty — is indeed vital. But man’s general well-being is of a much wider scope. It requires that we think beyond mere ‘freedom.’ It also requires that we understand that it can only be secured by the whole development of European culture. Without ‘Christian freedom,’ there can be no hope of finding a ‘complete’ meaning of life. And without democracy, there can be no political freedom. However, democracy should not be confused with the problematic teachings of modern liberalism. This is the main message of the ‘illiberal’ concept of politics proposed by Prime Minister Orbán.
The importance of the nation
Another central element in the future of Europe is the paramount importance of the nation. This was also the view of the ‘founding fathers,’ who were especially concerned with the status of the ‘small states’ of Europe, which they wanted to defend. Nations are vital. A world without nations, as Russell Kirk expressed so well in his classic 1953 elucidation of the idea of conservatism, would resemble a society without classes or structured communities.
We also know from painful experience what it means to live in a society in which ‘classes’ become the enemies of an ideal or utopian society. Unfortunately, communism is not dead. It did not disappear with the collapse of the Soviet Union or its satellite regimes in Eastern Europe. It has survived in Europe, lurking in people’s minds under different names. (In fact, communist ‘internationalism’ has been replaced by liberal ‘globalism,’ which similarly seeks a classless society — one that is destined to be superseded by a radical idea of liberal equality.) Communism is not a virus like Covid-19; but it is as elusive — and even as fatal — because it keeps changing disguises. Regrettably, there is a failure to understand this and its historical trajectory.
The EU must understand the gamut of experiences of the many individual nations that comprise it, otherwise it is liable to fall victim to ideas that are not only detrimental but also fatal. At the same time, we urgently need a patriotic return to our national cultures, inspired by both faith and reason — unless we want to let the entire EU disintegrate. Brexit provided a very strong signal that Europe faces just such a threat. We must avoid this.
A Europe without distinct nations would be the hotbed of the greatest tyranny ever! If natural distinctions are obliterated, tyranny then fills the vacuum. Europe should not become an ‘empire’ that lacks sovereign nations and autonomous regions. Those wishing to have an empire should remember the dangers of following the simplistic communist ideal of imagining a world without borders and without a vicious past — a past which the ideologues see as having produced the family, religion, and all those natural distinctions: between men, and between male and female; between the high and the low, beauty and ugliness.
It is the political community that can provide a sense of belonging to every one of us — and thus inspire loyalty and respect. But if such communities are weakened, then there will be nothing (and no one) left to respect, and the idea of community will entirely disappear from the world — and with it, loyalty, love, family, civilization.
The family as the nucleus of society
The fundamental importance of the nation points to the primary importance of the family, the basis of any healthy society. While it is true that the demographic situation of the family in Europe provokes some very serious questions about its future, it is fitting to briefly recall its role.
Our first and most natural sense of ‘belonging’ is a consequence of the loving embrace of our parents. We learn to exist within the bonds of the family and its traditions. This is the beginning of education. It also marks the start of a proper understanding of freedom, which can only be exercised within natural boundaries.
True education always aims at making younger generations more aware of both their internal potential — that is, their capabilities and possibilities — while also making them understand their commitments and duties to community and nation. We are, of course, all endowed with free will; but its importance is about more than just enjoying ‘political rights.’ Rather, it demands from us a reasonable development of our moral conscience.
The importance of past experiences
A necessary element in assuring the future of European civilization is abiding by the lessons of past experience and having a profound respect for history. Recent events in the U.S. and in some Western European countries provide evidence of why history cannot be forgotten. Lest anyone believe something contrary, Eastern Europe provides ample evidence showing how and why the legacy (and remnants) of communism cannot and should not be ignored.
It seems not to be the case in the West, where, for example, the history and legacy of colonialism (and the accumulation of capital which it fuelled) is being entirely obliterated. In the process, ‘racism’ is increasingly being used as an ‘umbrella concept’ — not only to refer to anti-Semitism but also hatred of any ethnic minority. Although racism can certainly be a challenge for the West, the debate over colonialism only proves that history does matter.
We Europeans can only save Europe if we heed the lessons of the past. Those shouting today about Europe’s ‘racist past,’ and arguing that it must be effaced or cleansed, are merely re-framing the old communist obsession of ‘wiping out’ the past forever. We now know from experience where such things lead.
There is also the resurgence of the idea of a ‘one world government,’ which has been with us since the 19th century. Today it seems to have captured the imagination of numerous speakers and writers. They could be right — if they were willing to guarantee that ‘global government’ would not be the beginning of a never-before seen tyranny. A world government would require, of course, a world elite which would be superior to or above any popular or national control.
A ‘world elite’!? A ‘world aristocracy’? These are certainly possible. But if this comes to pass, it means that modern democracy was never truly a democracy — and, what is more, that it was merely a useful way of ensuring the power of people who are already select and superior. Communist ideologues and politicians had always wanted to achieve precisely this state of conditions.
Mutual respect between East and West
Another important aspect of Europe’s common future is ensuring a balance between Western and Eastern EU member states. Europe needs to complete the European project in order to remain strong. But Europe cannot truly be ‘complete’ without the further integration of more nations into the EU. The V4 countries have already demonstrated the economic, social, and cultural contributions that they can make to the development of the EU. Additional countries would add a lot more experience (and vigour) to implementation of Europe’s original goals.
At the same time, it is important to remember that the EU’s Eastern European members are not simply a supply source of cheap labour for Western countries. We are equal partners in Europe. We have repeatedly shown that Eastern European states can secure stability and security — and can even handle the coronavirus epidemic effectively.
Additionally, we understand the relevance of the nature and quality of the French and German relationship at the core of EU relations. But just as important is how the broader relationship between Western and Eastern countries will develop. And this is not only about the distribution of financial resources; it is a matter of mutual respect — because respect matters, too.
Avoiding the constant feeling of crisis
The biggest issue concerns Europe’s fundamental purpose and goals — whether it has lost sight of them and whether the idea of a “false Europe” [in the words of the The Paris Statement of 2017] can still influence our compatriots. This idea of a “false Europe” — to which the concept of “illiberal democracy” is a response — reminds us that ‘peace’ and ‘freedom’ are ideals so dear to us that we should remind everyone of the European project’s original purpose.
This, in turn, has to do with the transcendental meaning of human life — and with the fact that we do not live in vain and that the ‘good life’ is possible. Conditions, however, must be provided in order to achieve such a life. These conditions include not just economic stability but aspiring to moral greatness and a life of loyalty — both to our communities and to its more particular expressions like our families, our religions, and our nation (in a word: home).
‘Home’ is where we abide as individuals, committed to and maintained by the family, living as self-selected members of communities, groups, and nations — whose members share a common language, memory, and lifestyle. These should be our common aims. (And if this civilization is attractive to others, then we can respectfully advise them how to create their own.)
Most people in Europe are confused by the European continent’s future. They are perplexed by the question: how shall we be living in the 21st century and beyond? Every single decision we take today can impact the entire future of the cultures and civilization we call ‘European.’ What Europe is today is the outcome of a natural organic evolution, rather than the product of specific projects and designs. The “true Europe” is a symbol for the best that man can achieve through the application of reason and faith.
In the past, most novel ideas were only endorsed and became successful if they were based on a careful balance of reason and faith. This is the real foundation of the European way of life. But in recent decades, this balance has been lost. We now have to find a new balance between reason and faith. This is what we have to defend.
In order to better understand the basics of a “true Europe,” it is worth quoting from the description offered in The Paris Statement, that 2017 declaration written by a distinguished group of European thinkers all of whom were inspired by the simple idea that Europe is our home:
The reasons we hold Europe dear exceed our ability to explain or justify our loyalty. It is a matter of shared histories, hopes and loves. It is a matter of accustomed ways, of moments of pathos and pain. It is a matter of inspiring experiences of reconciliation and the promise of a shared future.
While it is true that the struggle for Europe is primarily a political one (which is natural), it cannot stop there. The struggle requires much more. We need to make a strong commitment to reality — to realism — while making sure we do not operate with any ideological urges, motivations, or intentions. In addition, we need to make a strong case for wisdom — i.e. we need to love wisdom.
In his short essay, “Man or Rabbit” [unpublished until 1970], C. S. Lewis wrote:
The idea of reaching ‘a good life’ without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up ‘a good life’ as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are ‘done away’ and the rest is a matter of flying.
The idea of ‘the good life’ has always been a central concept in European thought. It reflects our understanding that human beings need some transcendental underpinnings in order to know how we can and should live. But it also embodies the idea of ensuring sound political arrangements, reminding us how we can organize a good government. Perhaps, in this, we can draw inspiration from reflecting on Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s allegorical 14th century depiction of good and bad government in Siena. The beauty of such religious works can help us redeem the secular aspects of our world today.
This essay appears in the Summer/Fall 2020 issue of The European Conservative, Number 17:31-38.
