Vance in Munich: The Message
Belated Part 2 of Vance's European Adventure
There were plenty of hot takes on Vance’s February 14 speech in Munich (here’s a transcript or watch it here)—so I’m offering a cold one.
Many takes when the speech occurred were very negative, viewing it as the end of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, one of the most successful alliances in history. Some noted that it was really a speech to domestic audiences here in the U.S. Others made sincere arguments that the speech was a much-needed wake-up call to the Europeans that they could not take their alliance with the United States for granted.
I am way, way behind. In this post, I’ll add a few notes to the generally commentary. But I really want to zoom out and look at the bigger picture of what I think is going on, which also addresses the administration’s foreign policy overall and the White House confrontation with Zelensky. I’ll start in this post and continue the analysis discussion in a follow-up post later this week.
Speech Recap: Important Points with a whiff of Hypocrisy
As a major power attempted to conquer a nation on Europe’s fringe, the audiences at the Munich Security Conference anxiously awaited an address from Vice President Vance—hoping that he would reaffirm the NATO alliance, which has kept peace in Western Europe since its founding in 1949.
Instead, Vance castigated the Europeans for illiberal attitudes towards free speech and political competition.
It is absolutely true that European nations regulate speech in ways that would not be tolerated in the United States. Different nations are of course entitled to different standards in this regard. In his speech on AI in Paris just a few days prior, Vance rightfully recognized that regulations and laws can be manipulated to create or protect advantages for some at the expense of others. There are plausible arguments that in Europe these regulations have gone too far and are a threat to freedom. Fair enough. It is a bit rich coming from the representative of an administration that issues lists of forbidden words to government agencies, while threatening the media and universities in order to control them.
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Vance’s other main point which is closely related to the first was that the Europeans governments are preventing parties from competing in elections. He pointed to Romania, where a judge declared an election invalid because the winner was alleged to have been the beneficiary of Russian disinformation. Vance decried this decision, stating:
But 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.
So… if a democracy isn’t that strong, then it’s ok if falls apart?
All democracies have guardrails. The founding fathers, while creating a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” knew ancient history. The great democracies of antiquity degenerated into mob rule and destroyed themselves. Separation of powers and the Bill of Rights were developed expressly to prevent this and the subsequent descent into tyranny. It is particularly ironic making this point in Germany, where the guardrails of democracy clearly failed and unleashed horrors across the world.
Romania spent decades under the rule of Nicolae Ceausescu, probably the most monstrous of the Soviet-backed Eastern European dictators. It is understandable if they are a bit twitchy about a political figure playing footsie with the Russians.1
Vance’s real target with this talk was Germany, where elections were held not long after. The rightwing AfD appeared likely to expand its presence (it did) at the expense of the mainstream German parties—which boycott the AfD (because it is too close to Nazis). Vance and Trump find a great deal of commonality with the AfD. Vance met with them during his visit, to the consternation of the rest of Germany’s political leadership.2
Nonetheless, there is legitimacy to this criticism. The guardrails necessary for democracy can also be manipulated by those possessing power to keep others out of power. This fundamentally, is Vance’s argument about European politics. Still, it is hard to take Vance’s argument in good faith since he served a president who tried to overturn an election and currently keeps his party in line with veiled threats of violence.
The Heart of the Matter: Ignoring Immigration
At the core of Trumpism and the rise of his brand of right wing politics in the U.S. and elsewhere is immigration. As we press into the issue, we get closer to what Vance’s speech—and worldview—is really about. In Munich Vance stated that European politicians were controlling speech and election participation because they are “running in fear of your own voters…” On immigration in particular, Vance stated:
No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants. But you know what they did vote for? In England, they voted for Brexit. And agree or disagree, they voted for it. And more and more, all over Europe, they’re voting for political leaders who promise to put an end to out-of-control migration.
I personally believe that on the whole immigration is good for society, but there are costs. Like free trade, immigration may be good on the whole but it exacts costs that fall heavily on specific groups. With immigration, a fundamental problem is that these costs are not only economic. Immigration intersects with values and identity. A community may accept some newcomers, but a large influx may feel like too much change, too fast—a threat to a long-established way of life. For groups that are already disadvantaged, the welcome given to immigrants can feel unfair and coming at their expense. AfD’s political base is in the former East Germany. Although it has the lowest proportion of immigrants in the nation, many East Germans feel neglected and ill-used by the German government. Finally, there is crime and terrorism.
The people articulating these concerns may not articulate them in ways that are acceptable to polite discourse. But if those concerns are simply ignored or derided as racist, little wonder that those who have them throw in with the true racists.
Statistics may show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native-born, but crimes by immigrants play into deeper fears—and terror attacks by immigrants are a real phenomenon that must be heeded. Years ago, in a very different context (technology policy) I wrote a paper about risk communication (which I presented at Stanford.) A truism is that experts tend to think about risk probabilistically and in terms of cost-benefit analysis. But the general public thinks about risk in terms of heuristics that emphasize risks that inspire fear and dread—things that are seen as uncontrollable, catastrophic, and poorly understood. Terror attacks, for example, are far less common than regular crime. But they inspire this sense of dread, causing them to loom large in the public imagination.
Paul Slovic, one of the leaders in the study of risk perception and communication, wrote:
Perhaps the most important message from this research is that there is wisdom as well as error in public attitudes and perceptions. Lay people sometimes lack certain information about hazards. However, their basic conceptualizations of risk is much richer than that of experts and reflects legitimate concerns that are typically omitted from expert risk assessments. As a result, risk communication and risk management efforts are destined to fail unless they are structured as a two-way process. Each side, expert and public, has something valid to contribute. Each side must respect the insights and intelligence of the other.
Ideally, there is two-way communication on complex issues. The classic case of good risk communication is a doctor recommending a treatment. They should take the time to explain the treatment, its risks and benefits, and answer questions honestly. Patient concerns should be heard, addressed, and taken into consideration—possibly leading to change in the treatment. This is the ideal. Too often, authorities discuss among themselves and then broadcast what is happening or should be done. Broadcasting is one-way communication.
As Don MacGregor, a student of Slovic, who has spent his life studying risk analysis, bluntly told me:
Familiarity with the technical risk analysis can breed contempt for those who don’t share the same views of risk.
Contempt is a critical term here and points to the deeper forces of Creedal Passion that Trump and Vance are channeling. It cannot be stated often enough, Trump did not come out of the ether. When his political rise began, his casual dismissal of the experts and experienced politicians was part of his appeal. They had failed. When Trump ran for president in 2015, the American political class had lost two wars, overseen an economic meltdown, and allowed a massive opioids crisis that struck the regions that had already suffered the most negative consequences from free trade and immigration. Many Americans felt they were being held in contempt.
Trump, and now Vance, have recognized this trend—which extends to every corner of American life (Creedal Passion is non-partisan.) In Munich and in the Oval Office, we saw a part of how these trends manifest in foreign policy.
Stay tuned for more.
One can’t help but wonder if Romania was also called out because it had arrested the loathesome Tate brothers for human trafficking. These brothers are major influences in the “manosphere” which is a core component of the Trumpists. Under administration pressure, they were released and are now in Florida. Governor DeSantis, hardly a left or even centrist figure, is less than pleased with their new residence.
Vance was demonstrating the power of the participatory presidency I described in a previous post. He was both messaging audiences back home, but also allied groups abroad. These groups have increasingly international ties and can reinforce one another.