{"id":2017,"date":"2025-12-31T15:25:11","date_gmt":"2025-12-31T15:25:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/?post_type=furman-update&p=2017"},"modified":"2025-12-31T15:37:14","modified_gmt":"2025-12-31T15:37:14","slug":"europe-and-america-democracy-power-and-the-transatlantic-moment","status":"publish","type":"furman-update","link":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/lectures\/europe-and-america-democracy-power-and-the-transatlantic-moment\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary of Europe and America: Democracy, Power, and the Transatlantic Moment"},"content":{"rendered":"

In November, the Tocqueville Center for the Study of Democracy and Society concluded its fall lecture series with a two-part event that brought together three of the most influential scholars of European politics and political economy to address a question that now presses with renewed urgency: what is happening to the transatlantic relationship\u2014and what does it mean for democracy, sovereignty, and political order on both sides of the Atlantic?<\/p>\n

Over two evenings in the Watkins Room of the Trone Student Center, Liesbet Hooghe<\/span><\/span><\/strong>, Gary Marks<\/span><\/span><\/strong> (both of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), and Matthias Matthijs<\/span><\/span><\/strong> (Johns Hopkins University, SAIS) examined Europe\u2019s internal political transformations and their external consequences in an age shaped by populism, geopolitical rivalry, and renewed American unilateralism.<\/p>\n

The result was not a set of isolated lectures, but a sustained conversation\u2014one that moved from empirical analysis of party systems to structural theories of European integration, and finally to the strategic dilemmas facing Europe in the shadow of a changing United States.<\/p>\n

\"Brent

Brent Nelson, Director of the Tocqueville Center<\/p><\/div>\n

The Tocqueville Center and the Big Questions<\/h2>\n

Opening the second evening, Tocqueville Center Director Brent Nelsen<\/span><\/span><\/strong> situated the event within the Center\u2019s broader mission.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe\u2019re about the big questions in the Tocqueville Center. We like to ask questions like what does it mean to be human and what does the good society look like and how do we govern ourselves without destroying the possibility of human flourishing?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yet, as Nelsen emphasized, big questions require grounding in political reality. Data, institutions, and power relations matter\u2014especially when democratic norms themselves are under strain.<\/p>\n

That balance between normative concern and empirical rigor defined both evenings of discussion.<\/p>\n

\"Political

Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks speaking at the Furman University Tocqueville Center event on European politics.<\/p><\/div>\n

Part I: The Rise of the Radical Right and the Future of Europe<\/h2>\n

November 11<\/em><\/p>\n

The first evening, \u201cThe Rise of the Radical Right and the Future of Europe,\u201d<\/strong> featured Hooghe<\/strong> and Marks<\/strong>, whose collaborative work has shaped the study of European integration, multilevel governance, and party competition for decades.<\/p>\n

Drawing on the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES)\u2014the leading dataset on party positions across Europe\u2014their presentation traced the steady rise of what they term TAN parties: parties organized around Tradition, Authority, and Nationalism. Unlike earlier Euroskeptic movements, these parties now operate not at the margins but increasingly at the center of European politics.<\/p>\n

Their argument was not that Europe is experiencing a simple rightward swing, but that political conflict has been restructured. Economic left\u2013right competition has been partially displaced by cultural and territorial conflict\u2014over national identity, immigration, sovereignty, and the authority of supranational institutions.<\/p>\n

What emerged was a picture of Europe as politically fragmented yet structurally interdependent: electorates increasingly skeptical of integration, but states increasingly unable to act alone.<\/p>\n

This tension\u2014between national political pressure and functional interdependence\u2014set the stage for the second evening\u2019s discussion.<\/p>\n

\"Matthias

Matthias Matthijs on Europe, the United States, and the transatlantic challenge.<\/p><\/div>\n

Part II: The Transatlantic Trump Trap<\/h2>\n

November 12<\/em><\/p>\n

If the first night examined Europe\u2019s internal political realignment, the second night widened the lens. In his lecture, \u201cThe Transatlantic Trump Trap,\u201d<\/strong> Matthias Matthijs<\/strong> asked a deceptively simple question:<\/p>\n

Under what conditions does crisis actually produce meaningful political change?<\/p>\n

Matthijs began by challenging one of the most familiar clich\u00e9s of European studies\u2014the oft-quoted line attributed to Jean Monnet that Europe is \u201cforged in crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhat I find annoying about this line is that of course there\u2019s some truth to it\u2026 but it\u2019s massively overdetermined. There are so many crises where nothing happens.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For Matthijs, the real task is to explain when crises lead to deep transformation\u2014and when they result only in temporary fixes or strategic retreat.<\/p>\n

From Rules to Tools: A Structural Shift in Europe<\/h2>\n

Matthijs proposed a long-range, structural account of European integration, organized around three major phases:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Postwar Embedded Liberalism<\/strong> \u2013 shaped by full employment, welfare states, and American security guarantees.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Neoliberal Integration<\/strong> \u2013 marked by rule-based governance, market integration, and constraints on national discretion.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    The Emerging Geoeconomic Era<\/strong> \u2013 defined by economic security, resilience, and strategic autonomy.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \n

    \u201cWe live in a very different world today where what governments are after\u2026 is economic security or economic resilience.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    This shift, he argued, has pushed the European Union away from being a purely regulatory project and toward developing geoeconomic tools\u2014investment screening, industrial policy, trade defense mechanisms, and coordinated fiscal responses such as NextGenerationEU.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The EU, in other words, has begun to act more like a geopolitical actor\u2014even if uneasily and incompletely.<\/p>\n

    The Return of Power Politics<\/h2>\n

    Yet this emerging European sovereignty has been tested by a dramatic external shock: the return of Donald Trump<\/span><\/span> t<\/strong>o the White House.<\/p>\n

    Rather than strengthening European unity, Matthijs argued, Trump\u2019s second presidency has exposed a profound strategic vulnerability.<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cSince Trump\u2019s return\u2026 Europe\u2019s reaction has been one of appeasement.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    He identified a three-fold pattern:<\/p>\n