This is why the anti-Americanism of the European left risks sinking us

"For me, the top priority will be to achieve independence from the United States." This is what Friedrich Merz said the other evening, immediately after the first exit polls gave him the win. His words can undoubtedly be considered a reaction to the line adopted by the new American administration towards European countries. However, they bring to the surface an idea that has also been current in the past among members of the continental ruling class, especially in times when overseas there were presidents who were not welcome or in any case in contrast with the ideas of the mainstream.

This idea, even when it has not been made explicit, has worked in depth « inspiring legislative measures and also actions on the international chessboard not perfectly in line with those of the Americans. In essence, there has been an almost unreflected and underground form of hostility to the United States that has often gone hand in hand with the historical anti-Americanism of the left. It is almost a sort of occult legacy left to our liberal democracies by totalitarian regimes, starting with National Socialism, all profoundly hostile to America and from whose yoke we have freed ourselves precisely thanks to it.

Alexis de Tocqueville had seen America as a sort of Europe translated overseas and developed and grown there without the political and cultural sedimentations that history had deposited in our political and social life. Seen in this way, the European attitude could be considered as the revolt of the aged father without energy and agility towards a son in full strength. In essence, becoming independent from America could mean breaking a blood tie.

The idea of ​​a complete autonomy of Europe has always been very strong in the intellectual world. It can be found, for example, in many of the books written by the most influential of the current European and pro-European thinkers, namely the post-Marxist Jurgen Habermas. For him, what profoundly differentiates us is an idea of ​​international law based on soft power and not on force, an almost maniacal attention to rules and procedures, a multiculturalism that puts all religions and cultures on the same level, a marked propensity for welfare, a trust in the State, the desire for a multilateral and legally regulated world order that takes on the appearance of a "global internal policy" of which the UN should be the guarantor. Already at the time of Bush Jr., Habermas invited Europeans to be strengthened by these ideas and completely emancipate themselves from the American ally, too warmongering and rude for our sensibilities. If that program already had the traits of a utopia at the time, today we can say that historical reality has dismantled all its pretensions. How can we Europeans think of convincing the powerful Euro-Asian autocracies with the force of persuasion and a model that is now leaking from all sides? Didn't wanting everything to be regular lead us to reject investments and the spirit of innovation? Hasn't multiculturalism made coexistence within our states more difficult and our cities more unsafe? How can we guarantee welfare resources with an incipient economic and productivity crisis?

As for the State, it is clear that it is often the cause of the disease and not its cure. Supranational institutions have almost all ultimately flopped, ending up in the hands of States that do not believe in liberal and democratic principles. In addition to being culturally wrong, the path of autonomy is therefore, to say the least, unrealistic: it would deliver us to China or some other autocratic power. Paraphrasing what Otto von Bismarck said of Italy, Germany and Europe today, one could say: "Big appetite, weak teeth!"