Mike Gonzalez’s recent article for the Heritage Foundation paints a picture of a Europe supposedly undermining democracy and the transatlantic alliance through “lawfare” and censorship. But does this narrative hold up?
Lawfare or Democratic Safeguard?
Gonzalez criticizes the use of legal instruments to counter parties like AfD in Germany or Vox in Spain, branding it as “lawfare.”
However, in mature democracies, applying the law is precisely how constitutional order is preserved.
For instance, Germany’s classification of AfD as “extremist” by its domestic intelligence agency was the outcome of a legal and transparent process aimed at protecting democratic institutions from internal threats: the result of a meticulous legal process subject to judicial scrutiny.
This classification underwent judicial review. In May 2024, the Higher Administrative Court in Münster upheld the BfV’s decision, affirming that there was sufficient evidence to suggest the AfD pursued goals contrary to human dignity and democratic principles. The court’s ruling confirmed that the BfV’s actions were proportionate and did not violate constitutional or European civil law.
This legal action underscores the availability of judicial remedies and the robustness of Germany’s legal framework in handling such matters.
note: use the word “lawfare” is a classic tactic for undermining legal boundaries when the true objective is to impose political will through coercion rather than lawful process.
Censorship or Digital Accountability?
The article accuses the EU of censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA). In reality, the DSA aims to hold online platforms accountable for removing illegal content such as hate speech and disinformation. This is not censorship, but essential regulation in the digital age to safeguard citizens and democracy.
NATO: Divergence or Democratic Evolution?
Gonzalez suggests that transatlantic value gaps might weaken NATO. Yet alliances evolve. Current debates reflect a maturing partnership, where differences coexist with shared core values like democracy and liberty.
Perhaps the author should be reminded that Secretary of State Rubio was the original sponsor of legislation aimed at preventing the president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO.
Conclusion: A Narrative in Need of Revision
Gonzalez’s piece reads more as ideological commentary than objective analysis. European democracies are grappling with complex challenges, striving to balance liberty and security. Labeling these efforts as “lawfare” or “censorship” oversimplifies and distorts reality.
Note: To truly understand the dynamics between Europe and the United States, we must embrace nuance and complexity—eschewing one-sided narratives.