The article is another silly example of progressive backlash to the Trump administration’s much-needed reset of American relations with Europe.
Today, the New York Times published a four-byline hit piece on Samuel D. Samson, a young State Department official. It’s part of a broader move to rebuke President Trump for his “effort to reshape America’s relationship with Europe.” Samson, the writers say, “sought to cultivate Washington’s ties with far-right Europeans and bolster such figures at the expense of Europe’s centrist establishment.” The Times’ journalists outline a litany of grievances against Samson and Sarah Rogers, the ubiquitous undersecretary of state for public diplomacy who has become the face of the administration’s efforts to shape positive political change in Europe.
Among the alleged sins chronicled is Samson’s purported instruction to career State Department bureaucrats to “brainstorm how to punish the European Union for . . . restricting speech.” Freedom of speech is, in fact, under significant threat in the EU and many of its member-states, as even prominent liberals concede. The Times also took issue with Samson’s attempt to rebrand the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, where he is senior adviser, as the Bureau of Natural Rights. The new name is part of the Trump administration’s campaign to curtail the outrageous and ideologically tinged expansion of the concept of “human rights” that past administrations used to do everything from fund transgender-rights campaigns abroad to punish countries for maintaining culturally conservative laws. The Times further accused Trump State Department officials of elevating a “bogus far-right conspiracy theory” when they pointed out the effects of mass migration on Europe’s cultural and demographic stability.
One of the article’s most amusing — and revealing — portions was the description of a December meeting in London between Rogers and British diplomats:
In early December, face to face with British diplomats in London, Ms. Rogers did not hold much back. In the meeting, previously unreported, Ms. Rogers railed against migration levels in Britain, accusing migrants of stoking a crime wave. (Crime against individuals and households has generally fallen in Britain over the past 10 years, according to official figures.) She criticized British police for arresting a comedy writer critical of advocacy for transgender rights. She insisted that the diplomats knew something was wrong with the British system, according to four people familiar with the conversation.
The British officials were left stunned.
“Jaws dropped,” one person said.
The article is another silly example of progressive backlash to the Trump administration’s much-needed reset of American relations with Europe and effort to align our diplomacy with the promotion of authentic civil liberties, national sovereignty, and cultural integrity. That said, the article is interesting insofar as it illustrates an ongoing phenomenon: the continued inability of the European political establishment to understand the American right and come to terms with the civilizational threats that the American right has correctly identified.
European officials who tried to dismiss Donald Trump as an aberration after his 2016 election have still not accepted the fact that his administration, now in its second rendition, is more than a temporary electoral blip — it’s the reflection of a sincere desire for change among large segments of the American population in how the U.S. approaches its relationships with our traditional allies on the Old Continent. The “shared values” that grounded our relations in the Cold War era no longer unite us to the same degree. For one, the common enemy of the Soviet Union is long gone. For all Putin’s evil, he’s not Stalin, and modern Russia can’t be fairly cast as an “evil empire” in the way the USSR rightly was. Furthermore, Europe has increasingly retreated from the Western civilizational norms that united us during the last century. Whether through welcoming enormous numbers of immigrants from third world countries, embracing cultural leftism, or censoring, fining, and jailing those who dare to criticize such lamentable developments, the elites in London, Brussels, and Berlin are increasingly at odds with American ideals and values.
To take one example from the article: British officials are shocked that American diplomats would tell them that mass immigration has been bad for their country and has resulted in political and cultural changes that strain bilateral relations. Their shock reflects the hive-minded cycle of denial that grounds progressive, mediocre governance (see: Britain’s comprehensively inept Labour government) and that impedes genuine progress in strengthening Anglo-American ties.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it well in his truly masterful speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, when he told European leaders that the Trump administration might “come off as a little direct and urgent in our counsel” because it recognizes that America’s “destiny is and will always be intertwined” with Europe’s. American disagreements with European policy on issues such as migration, social order, cultural integrity, and national sovereignty come from a place of good faith: “Our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected — not just economically, not just militarily. We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally.”
If only Europe’s leaders and its mouthpieces in the progressive American media would acknowledge the grave economic, cultural, and demographic crises that the Continent is facing — and accept that under this administration, America is only there to help.