Wednesday, April 9, 2025
Some weeks ago, Sallux had the honor to cooperate with representatives of various groups in Syria and MP’s of the Dutch Parliament in order to ensure that non-radical voices from Syria were able to explain the situation in Syria from their perspective to relevant policy makers in Europe. We noticed with concern that the appeasement of (and support for) extremism by both EU and EU Member States officials continues and does not seem to end. As a consequence many people in Syria (both Muslims and non-Muslims) still want to leave Syria and come to Europe. We see the EU and EU Member States continued appeasement and support for extremist regimes such as Iran, Turkey, Qatar and so on even though these extremist regimes have been and continue to be a major cause of the refugee stream to Europe. What we also see is a wide range of conservative and Christian-democrat politicians seemingly uninterested in changing the foreign policy of their respective Member States or the EU as a whole. This regardless of the fact that it would make a very serious difference in terms of the number of people fleeing to Europe. The same pattern can be noticed in other policy fields. It is clearly much easier to attack ‘Brussels’ or ‘the left’ (or the national government) than to really engage with the issues behind the challenges we see. Others seem to be more interested in nostalgia (calling for return to the traditional family) than in trying to decrease the real pressures on families in terms of taxation, costs of living and (especially) time. It is easier to lament the dominance of left-liberals in mainstream media than to tackle the excesses of neoliberal economic policies that come at the cost of family life. It is clear that cultural issues matter and that fundamental freedoms need to be protected, but it is equally clear that this is a very narrow scope and insufficient for a serious policy agenda. Even more problematic is the phenomenon in which people who profile themselves as conservatives or Christian-democrats adopt a cultural posture that is the opposite of human dignity. They adopt an agenda of a concept of ‘masculinity’ that rejects empathy. They adopt a culture of raw individualism and personal strength. Let it be clear that this is against any Christian understanding of humanity. If we no longer recognize the humanity in the other human being, we do not understand that Christ came to save all humanity: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16). If we reject empathy; we reject love and we reject human dignity (which is anchored in Christ). Moreover this understanding of masculinity looks away from the reality that we cannot and will not be ‘strong independent individuals’ all our life (babies, disabled, ill and old need care). That this needs to be clarified is sufficient evidence that the conservative and Christian-democrat movement in the western world needs to reflect on what its core values are and how these values shape its core goals. A mistake was made when the conservative and Christian-democrat movement replaced Christ with ‘tradition’ (or ‘moral order’). Traditions are good but ‘tradition’ can be anything and ‘moral order’ as well. It very quickly becomes nothing more than nostalgia to the past morphing into ‘anything goes’ and mere contempt for the left. But nostalgia and contempt are clearly not a basis for a policy agenda. The attempt to find a core for conservatism and Christian-democracy outside Christ has (in this sense) failed. Obviously we cannot expect that everyone becomes a Christian. We can however assert that Christian faith has been and will be the cornerstone for human dignity and that human dignity has to be the core of conservatism and Christian-democracy. It recognizes Christ as the source and anchor of human dignity but also recognizes that human dignity can be understood by all and everyone. Human dignity in turn is a solid foundation for embracing life, family, freedom and community as the major conditions for society and the goals for policy making. We are therefore speaking of a relational understanding of human dignity as all these goals are relational (and human dignity itself as well). This is why we have to reject both left-liberalism and neoliberalism as both are based on individualism and fail to include the relational reality of life. That is why it is close to impossible to really support families in a neoliberal economic order. Moreover if human dignity is the basis for freedom, it cannot be that we ignore the oppression of millions outside Europe and do not raise our voice against the continued appeasement and support of totalitarian and extremist regimes in our foreign policy. Moreover we should not be surprised that people flee to Europe to flee extremism and oppression. Only with human dignity at its core and a clear vision of what it wants to achieve, the wider conservative and Christian-democrat movement has a lasting impact and future. Picture rights: WikiCommons
