Grok
Vance's talk brought into the open a schism about individual liberty that has divided America from Europe since 1776.Vice President JD Vance recently delivered a significant and historic address at the Munich Security Conference. Speaking directly to the government, business, military, and diplomatic leaders who form the core of Europe’s and the West’s elite foreign policy establishment, he firmly asserted that the primary purpose of the United States is to protect and preserve individual liberty, rather than to establish global governance or uphold multinational alliances.
“For years we’ve been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values,” said the Vice President. “Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard.”
In response, German diplomat and conference chair Christoph Heusgen, visibly moved, exclaimed, “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief… that this multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles, on the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This order is easy to disrupt, it’s easy to destroy, but it’s much harder to rebuild, so let us stick to these values. Let us not reinvent them, but focus on strengthening their consistent application.”
<img alt captext="Grok” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/in-munich-jd-vance-championed-the-individual-not-the-collective.jpg” width=”550″>
Image by Grok.
These remarks highlight a fundamental divide. The political elite in Europe—and many in the United States—prioritize the so-called “Rules-Based International Order,” which seeks political and economic stability. This stability serves to secure the power of those who uphold it, often at the expense of citizens who cherish individual liberty—the very principle Vance came to Berlin to advocate.
Since the end of World War II, European elites have placed stability over freedom. Their greatest fear is the rise of populist governments, which they equate with the authoritarian regimes of Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, or Hitler’s Germany. To maintain stability, they have relied on American financial and military resources for decades.
However, this arrangement has been challenged. European leaders overplayed their hand by asking the United States to bankroll the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. With President Trump—not President Biden—now controlling the U.S. checkbook, the expectation of unlimited support has come under scrutiny.
As Vice President Vance suggested, foreign entanglements are not inherently American. Geographically separated by two oceans from Europe and Asia, the United States was predominantly isolationist from its founding until World War I. This philosophy can be traced back to President George Washington’s Farewell Address:
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
A recent article, “Anatomy of Isolationism,” published by the Council on Foreign Relations, echoes this sentiment:
Throughout, with the exception of the nation’s entry into World War I, the United States sought to avoid entanglement in great-power rivalry and resisted the temptation, which was so enthusiastically embraced by other states of similar rank, to extend its reach into and to exert its influence over distant strategic theaters. The test of America’s isolationist credentials was not its mounting ambition in the Western Hemisphere or its insatiable commercial appetite. These were foreordained. What was optional was following in the footsteps of Europe’s imperial powers and seeking to shape the balance of power in theaters far afield. On this front, the United States passed the isolationist test with flying colors.
In other words, there’s something more to the divide between American and Europe than just Europe’s fear of another Hitler or Mussolini. Instead, there is a stark difference between Americans and Europeans regarding the primacy of individual freedom versus political stability. Why is this?
One answer lies in America’s foundational belief that God, not the government, grants individual liberty. The government’s role is to protect and preserve that liberty, not to dictate or restrict it. In America, sovereignty belongs to the people, not to the state. This principle is enshrined in our founding documents and ingrained in our national identity.
In contrast, the monarchies of old Europe operated under a different philosophy. There, the sovereign was the king, whose authority was divinely granted, and the people—after the aristocracy—were merely subjects. Rights were not inherent but bestowed at the ruler’s discretion.
Although we may think of this as an outdated perspective, the reality tells a different story. Even today, twelve monarchies remain in Europe, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Luxembourg, and Vatican City.
Ultimately, the speech by Vice President Vance underscored a fundamental divergence between American and European worldviews. While Europe continues to prioritize stability through collective governance, America, under President Trump’s stewardship, remains steadfast in its commitment to individual liberty. As global challenges mount, this philosophical divide will likely shape the future of international relations, compelling the United States to reassess its role in foreign affairs.
