I find myself in a strange position vis-a-vis Andrew Sullivan—I’m defending core American values from someone who has suddenly adopted the continental European definition of liberalism. Andrew Sullivan approves of Pim Fortuyn’s admittedly complex political stance that nevertheless borrows heavily from a European tradition of cultural nationalism, a tradition that the United States has historically rejected in favor of a libertarian conviction that the individual’s beliefs and their expression of them are none of the government’s business.

And here I am, a Belgian living in New York City, in love with the social cacophony of this country (see previous blog) and well aware of the strengths that immigration engenders, both culturally and economically. I think Europeans who are seduced by Pim Fortuyn just don’t get how essential an ingredient immigration is in the US recipe for success. I’m disappointed with Europeans who convert a conviction that their Judeo-Christian heritage is superior into a political agenda that would compel immigrants to change the way they act or perceive themselves. (Le Pen’s repatriation idea is beyond the pale, by the way.)

I too happen to think that Islam could do with a dose of humanism, but it’s my conviction (and Andrew Sullivan’s too, elsewhere on his site) that it’s an individual’s right absolutely to hold the “wrong” belief and still partake fully in society, with all their rights intact. Pim was wrong too, but I’m deeply sorry he won’t be around to debate this, for he was certainly an engaging and articulate contributor to the democracy of ideas.