On the Crisis Facing European Civilisation: A Reply To President Macron

Why he is the problem and not the solution

The French President, Emmanuel Macron’s recent lecture at Sorbonne University, ‘Europe – It Can Die. A New Paradigm’ addresses a problem that should concern us all, which is that European civilisation is confronted with an existential crisis. In this speech, he warned that ‘we are at a tipping point, and our Europe is mortal’.

Speaking for nearly two hours, in a serious, solemn tone, he reiterated that ‘we must be clear about the fact that today, our Europe is mortal. It can die. It can die, and it all depends on our choices. These choices have to be made now’. Throughout his very long speech, Macron indicated that the stakes are high and that the battles ahead for Europe’s future have civilisational consequences.

That European Civilization is in trouble is not in doubt. It appears that Europe does not believe in itself. Due to its depressing economic performance, the gap separating it from China and the United States has widened. A mood of political impasse matches its economic stagnation.

In the face of mass migration, Europe has assumed the posture of self-paralysis, and it has more or less given up on controlling its borders. The Western European cultural elites have become alienated from their heritage and sound increasingly like their American cousins. American or, more specifically, California values have displaced traditional European norms within the institutions of the EU and the public bodies of many member states. The spiritual malaise that haunts the Continent runs in parallel with a mood of pessimism about future prospects. This sensibility is one of the drivers of the Continent’s demographic bust. Catastrophically low birth rates coupled with large-scale mass migration are fast changing the cultural characteristics of the Continent.

Expressions of support for the ideals of European civilisation are conspicuously rare in public life. Most books and commentaries touching on this subject tend to be anti-civilisational.  Affirmation of a civilisational identity is often attacked as a trope associated with far-right political movements. According to one account, far-right political parties ‘have recently generated a civilisational discourse in order to expand their electorate’.¹ A widely hailed recently published study questions the existence of ‘a distinct Western civilisation’. It concludes by suggesting that civilisational thinking does not explain much about history and the contemporary world.²

At a time when European civilization is held in such low esteem by the Continent’s intellectuals and cultural elites, any attempt by a leading politician like Macron to address this issue is to be welcomed.

It is important to note that, unlike most political leaders who avoid discussing substantive matters concerning Europe’s future, Macron frequently engages with ‘big picture’ issues. He often refers to the legacy of European and French civilisation and adopts the demeanour of a statesman at the crossroads of history. Five years ago, in 2017, he delivered a similarly high-profile and grandiose lecture where he outlined his vision for European security and strategic autonomy. Five years later, Europe is less autonomous than in 2017, which has not prevented Macron from repeating his ambition for strategic independence.

Anyone who understands and is concerned with the disorientation of Europe’s political leadership is likely to be sympathetic to Macron’s exhortation about the need to recognise the scale of the problems facing the Continent. Unfortunately, Macron’s assessment of Europe’s predicament lacks focus, and during his speech, he jumps from one topic to the next. His is a visionary speech without a vision.

Macron casts his net very wide, indiscriminately representing virtually every issue facing Europe as a symptom of an existential crisis. In the same breath, Macron moves from considering Europe’s crisis of values to the question of military defence and climate emergency before dwelling on the problem of children being glued to their screens in their digital bedrooms. The digital transition, artificial intelligence, the environment and decarbonisation are some of the many themes that Macron raises before dropping them in favour of another topic.

Frequently, Macron confuses the symptom of a problem with its cause. For example, his wish to ‘re-civilise the digital space’ overlooks the fact that the forces of European de-civilisation emanate from and mainly operate off-line. It is the influence of anti-civilisational attitudes in everyday life that are refracted and amplified in the digital world. There is little point in attempting to re-civilise the digital space until the problem is challenged in the off-line world.

Unfortunately, when he dwells on the cultural and civilisational battle that threatens European civilisation, Macron tends to resort to statements that are euphemistic and opaque. He is reluctant to name names and instead seeks refuge in vague generalities. Macron’s shopping-list approach towards outlining the crisis facing European civilisation obscures the point of his lecture. It is only after a careful analysis of his rhetoric that it becomes evident that the primary motive for framing his speech as a discourse on the threat to European civilisation is his concern with the rising tide of populism.

Macron’s reflections on the Culture Wars are particularly disappointing. He mistakenly implies that the main threat facing European civilisation is external rather than internal. So, when Macron turns to a consideration of the Culture War sweeping the Continent, he is much clearer about the threat posed by American and Asian digital content on social platforms to European children than he is about conflicts that are internal to Europe. Regarding external threats facing European culture, Macron has no hesitation in naming names. Matters are different when he touches on the internal crisis facing European public life. He writes of ‘the culture war, the battle of imaginations, narratives and values,’ which he claims is ‘becoming increasingly delicate’.

Delicate for who and why? Presumably, his reference to the battle of narratives and values refers to the challenge posed to the hegemonic status enjoyed by the outlook of the EU-centred elites. Macron explains;

‘Our liberal democracy is increasingly criticised, through false arguments, with a kind of reversal of values, because we let it happen, because we are vulnerable. Everywhere in our Europe our values and our culture are under threat because the fundamentals are being challenged, believing that authoritarian approaches would somehow be more effective or attractive, under threat also because our dreams and our narratives are less and less European.’

From this statement, it is far from clear who is criticising ‘our liberal democracy’ and what false arguments are being used. What does the assertion about a ‘kind of reversal of values’ mean? Nor is it evident what the ‘fundamentals’ are being challenged. Macron’s alarmist warning about ‘authoritarian approaches’ evokes memories of the 1930s, but who is advocating them in 21st-century Europe?

Reading between the lines, it seems that these enemies without a name are movements and political parties with serious reservations about Macron and his Eurocrat colleagues’ hyper-federalist project. One of the instruments used to promote this project is the weaponisation of the rule of law. Therefore it is not surprising that in his speech, Macron calls for the instrumentalisation of the rule of law as a medium for intervening in the domestic affairs of EU member states to neutralise the rising tide of Eurosceptic and sovereigntist movements.

In particular, Macron supports ‘budget conditionality linked to the rule of law in the payment of EU funds’. That means that receiving funds from the EU should be conditional on meeting the rule of law requirements set by this institution. And who decides how the rule of law requirement is elaborated and assessed? Members of the EU elite whose federalist worldview resembles that of Macron. Experience indicates that those in charge of imposing the rule of conditionality make up the rules as they go along. Rule of law conditionality is a tawdry form of blackmail used against national government who are reluctant to act in accordance with the federalist playbook.

Macron wants more European federalism and the expansion of the politicisation of the rule of law. He is clearly not satisfied with how the rule of law conditionality is imposed on member states.  Referring to the rule of conditionality in his speech, he noted that ‘we still need to strengthen it further with procedures for establishing and sanctioning serious violations’.

Many observers took the view that Macron’s Sorbonne speech was designed to reinforce his claim to be the grand statesman of the EU. However, it is likely that the purpose of his grandiose statement was to demonstrate to the French electorate that he is a credible leader of the nation. Though Macron never mentioned the Rassemblement Nationale (RN) by name, this party was the real target of his speech. Why? Because the RN will likely trounce Macron’s movement in the upcoming European election in June. Macron and his party are clearly on the defensive in the Culture War being waged in France.

Macron’s commitment to European values is open to question despite his rhetoric in the current Culture War. In his speech, he correctly noted that ‘there are grand narratives that inspire the planet, and Europe is increasingly consuming narratives produced elsewhere’. The EU elites and their colleagues throughout Western Europe have thoroughly internalised American woke values. Paradoxically, Macron and his regime have also come under the influence of these values. Though Macron occasionally kicks back against Californian values, under his regime, woke sentiments gained considerable influence in France. His commitment to European civilisation is rhetorical rather than substantive.

Tragically, Macron does not grasp that the logic of ever-expanding EU federalism contradicts the legacy of European Civilisation. Historically, the idea of Europe and its civilisational achievements are inseparable from the creative tension created by the cultural differences of the many nations that exist in close proximity throughout the Continent. Yet despite the power of national loyalties, people throughout the Continent identify as European and members of a common civilisation. Indeed, it is through the exercise of national sovereignty that the specific features of European civilisation gain definition. The hyper-federalism Macron proposed in his speech at Sorbonne is antithetical to the civilisational accomplishment of Europe.

Paradoxically it is Macron and his EU cronies who stand in the way of the revitalisation of European Civilisation.

---

1. See ‘Europe versus Islam?: Right-Wing Populist Discourse and the Construction of a Civilizational Identity’. By Ayhan Kaya and Ayşe Tecmen in Haynes, J. (2021), A Quarter Century of the ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Taylor & Francis : London.

2. See Quinn, J. (2024) How The World Made The West: A 4,000-Year History, Bloomsbury : London.