The Western Coalition: Current Options and Visions

By Ron Raskin.

Since the dawn of history, the dream of unity has swept through human civilization like a subtle, elusive breeze — from tribes uniting into kingdoms, to kingdoms giving rise to peoples and nations, and over the past two centuries, from nations evolving into civilizations, moving ever closer to the vision of a united world.

Yet unity has never come easily. Countless wars have been fought in its name — between those who believed in one path to unity and those who believed in another. And today, as always, the question of unity hovers in the air of the Western world. As always, different schools of thought see unity through different eyes — and are ready to fight for their vision with unyielding zeal, sparing few of the political means at their disposal, and perhaps even going beyond them.

In this post, we’ll focus on the main current Western views on unity, rather than on the broader worldviews and forces behind them, which you can find here.

Forces that shape ideologies

To understand the current dreams of unity and the political landscape in the West, we must first grasp the main assumptions and beliefes underlying each approach. So let’s begin with their underlying taxonomy:

1. Optimism about human nature – Those who believe that human nature is inherently good tend to think social problems can be solved through appropriate policies. Those who are less optimistic tend to favor more forceful approaches and hold more conservative views.
2. Optimization approach: local vs. global – Those who believe in the possibility of comprehensive solutions to the world’s problems usually favor sophisticated, all-encompassing strategies. Those who see the world as rapidly and unpredictably changing prefer to focus on the present moment, emphasizing simple, incremental solutions — baby steps.
3. Identity – Identity is how people perceive who they are, what their values are, and who they see as similar to themselves (their group affiliation) defines their identity — or sometimes a hierarchy of identities.

These fundamental beliefs — which are often deeply ingrained and difficult to change — lead to differing perspectives along several key axes:

1. Liberalism vs. Conservatism – Liberals tend to believe in the power of change. This can also be seen as faith in a global optimization approach: the idea that society can be rapidly improved through broad , comprehensive, transformative reforms. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more cautious about change, assuming high social inertia and limited control over complex systems. In other words, they prefer small changes, local optimizations and gradual, step-by-step progress.
2. Immigration: Multiculturalism and Inclusion vs. Restriction – Progressives often believe that liberal values will eventually prevail, and that the only reason they haven’t yet is due to existing social and structural barriers. By removing these barriers and solving social problems, they believe societies will naturally evolve toward democracy and liberalism. The opposing view, while still valuing liberalism, does not see it as inevitable and doubts the ability to change human nature in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it favors strict boundaries to protect liberal, religious, and national values from external cultural threats.
3. Foreign Policy: Diplomacy and Containment vs. Maximum Pressure and Force – Those who believe liberalism will ultimately prevail tend to favor diplomacy, dialogue, and incentives (“the carrot”) to reduce aggression and encourage internal reform. Those who view this as unrealistic see the global conflict as a struggle between the liberal world and its adversaries — such as Islamism — where decisive strength and pressure are necessary for deterrence and eventual victory.
4. Civilizational, Religious, Ethnic, or Liberal Values – Depending on their sense of identity, people may define the divide between “us” and “them” through ethnic, religious, civilizational, or purely liberal-democratic values.
5. Globalism vs. Sovereignty – The more optimistic and globally oriented tend to favor globalism and international governance, while the more pessimistic or conservative prefer national sovereignty and local control.
6. Coalition Structure: Integration vs. Hierarchy – Optimistic ideologies that emphasize global solutions and shared identity tend to prefer strong, integrated federations or alliances. In contrast, more cautious or local-optimization-oriented ideologies favor looser, hierarchical structures — coalitions of sovereign partners rather than unified entities.
7. Coalition Membership – Coalition preferences depend on the factors above. Those emphasizing civilizational or Christian values often see Israel as a natural ally sharing similar moral and cultural foundations. They may also view Russia as a “lost” member of the same civilizational family — one that could eventually return. In contrast, ideologies centered on liberal and democratic values prioritize partnerships based on shared political systems rather than religion or heritage. Similarly, while those with a civilizational-Christian focus may see Asian democracies as friendly but secondary partners, liberal globalists consider them equally valuable due to shared democratic ideals.
8. Fertility and Family: Personal Choice vs. Social Duty – More conservative and less optimistic thinkers, who doubt the feasibility of integrating large-scale immigration, tend to view higher fertility rates as a crucial factor in the long-term demographic and cultural struggle — where numbers matter. Those with a globalist perspective, however, place less importance on fertility, believing that integration and globalization, rather than population size, determine future success.

Now, having outlined these axes, we can map the different approaches found across the West.

Ideologies

Perhaps the most intriguing of all is Trump’s ideology, which embodies an almost complete rejection of any values beyond the nation’s own interests — in the simplest and most straightforward sense. This results in a transactional worldview that represents the opposite side of the same “no-barriers” Progressive coin. While the progressive movement seeks to build a global confederation of democratic nations by removing barriers to liberal society through social transformation, Trump’s vision rejects the idea that liberalism is the only legitimate path — and therefore sees no barriers at all. Any nation willing to cooperate with the United States, so long as it brings mutual benefit and peace, is welcome.

Paradoxically, this approach promotes a genuinely multilateral world: one where you don’t have to resemble me or share my beliefs (liberal or democratic) — you simply need to accept me and avoid conflict. The key difference from the progressive approach lies in where each seeks alignment. Progressives aim to harmonize the interests of ordinary people — a bottom-up vision — while Trump focuses on aligning the interests of elites — a top-down strategy. Both stand in stark contrast to Bush-era neoconservatism, which sought to export democracy by any means necessary.

Leader	Ideology	Core Values and Focus	Deep/fundamental beliefs
Sánchez (Spain)	Progressive Socialism	Equality, welfare, global justice, human rights	Belief that liberalism is the ultimate goal of humankind, Very optimistic about human nature, Liberal Cosmopolitan identity, Global optimization
Macron (France) Ursula von der Leyen (EU)	Progressive liberalism	Individual rights, multilateralism, combines globalism with strong civic nationalism	Belief that liberalism is the ultimate goal of humankind, Optimistic about human nature, Liberal and French/European/Cosmopolitan identity, Global optimization
Merz (Germany) Angela Merkel (Germany) David Cameron (UK)	Conservative liberalism	Balance liberty with order and tradition	Hope that liberalism is the ultimate goal of humankind, Not optimistic about human nature, Democratic and Civic-national/European/Atlanticist identity, Local optimization (pragmatic)
George W. Bush (U.S.) Tony Blair (U.K.)	Neoconservatism (subtype of conservative liberalism focused on export of democracy)	Spread democracy, global influence	Belief that liberalism is the ultimate goal of humankind, Optimistic about human nature, Liberal and Civic-national/Atlanticist identity, Global optimization
Olaf Scholz (Germany)	National liberalism	Nation-state, sovereignty, civil liberties	Belief that liberalism is the ultimate goal of humankind, Optimistic about human nature, Liberal and Civic-national/Atlanticist identity Global optimization
Giorgia Meloni (Italy) Mateusz Morawiecki (Poland)	National conservatism	Faith, family, nation; sovereignty	Hope that liberalism is the ultimate goal of humankind, Pessimistic about human nature, Humanism and Atlanticist/Christian cultural identity Midway between global and local optimization
Marine Le Pen (France) Geert Wilders (Netherlands)	National populism	People vs. elite; sovereignty	Liberalism is our way but there are others, Pessimistic about human nature, Ethno-cultural/Civilizational identity, Midway between global and local optimization
Donald Trump (U.S.)	National populism	People vs. elite; sovereignty	Liberalism is our way but there are others, Pessimistic about human nature, but optimistic about the ability to change elites and influence their interests. US/Ethno-cultural identity, Pure local optimization

Does the table above fully and precisely reflect the forces, ideas, and values behind each ideology? Of course not. Just as Leninism and Maoism brutally betrayed and distorted Marxist ideas they were supposed to promote (or, if you prefer, just as Leninism, and Maoism exposed what Marxism was really about — both views can be valid depending on perspective), the same happens with other ideologies.

Every ideology starts from certain ideas but soon develops a life of its own. How those ideas take shape in reality is a different issue — and a topic for another post. The key takeaway, though, is that what matters isn’t only the ideas themselves, but also the way they’re put into action.

Today, when every side is trying to push its ideology without limits — sometimes even cutting off the very branch of values it sits on — it’s vital for every part of the Western ideological spectrum to look deeper. We must recognize what lies beneath the words, especially when something is hidden so well that it ends up destroying the very idea it was meant to serve.

Identities and Wester Coalition

The desired structure of the Western Coalition is fundamentally determined by how each ideology defines identity. The table below details each ideology’s view of identity and the resulting vision for the Coalition:

Leader	Identity	Core of coalition	View on Western coalition
Sánchez (Spain)	Pluralist: coexistence of multiple identities within a social democracy	Global moral community. Nations with shared morality.	Sees the West as a moral community rather than a power structure, one that should lead through cooperation, inclusiveness, human rights, and empathy. Advocates multilateralism and global governance through institutions like the UN and EU, without viewing Israel or Asian democracies as uniquely privileged partners. Supports a broad coalition of democracies and emerging nations—including the Global South—built on the principle of equality, not hierarchical affiliation, and rejects any “West vs. Rest” worldview.
Macron (France)	Civic/global identity, integration of diversity. Assimilationist: one national identity under secular rules	Liberal democratic values. Nations with shared security	Sees the West as a “values-based civilization” that must defend its core principles — freedom, secularism, and democracy. Believes Europe should lead the West, advocating for “strategic autonomy” — a strong, united Europe acting as a third pillar between the U.S. and China. Envisions a strong confederation of democratic nations with the following hierarchy: a federalized EU at the core, followed by G7/NATO allies, and then key partners such as Israel, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and India.
Merz (Germany)	Civic-national, moderate cultural pride	Shared interests + law	A disciplined Western alliance — one that respects national sovereignty yet remains united in defense. Envisions a confederation of Western democracies, with NATO and a federalized EU at its core, followed by key partners such as Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and broader collaboration with India and others.
Giorgia Meloni (Italy)	Strong cultural & civilizational identity (Christian heritage)	Identity + democracy	A value-based Western confederation: a relatively weak alliance primarily united by shared values among NATO and European nations, followed by Israel as a civilizational ally, then Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, with India as an optional partner.
Marine Le Pen (France)	Strong ethno-cultural and civilizational nationalism	Civilization + interest	A sovereign self-defending Europe: a very loose confederation of independent nations, with Israel as a civilizational ally.
Donald Trump (U.S.)	American exceptionalism & cultural nationalism	Sovereignty + mutual defense	A loose global network of strong nations, led by the U.S. based on power and national interest rather than ideology, centered on Atlantic democracies and Israel, with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan as strategic partners, and India primarily engaged as an economic partner.

Approach to Islamism and immigration:

Views on Islamism and immigration are essentially a litmus test for how the ideologies described above play out in practice.

Leader	Islamism	Immigration
Sánchez (Spain)	Sees Islamism primarily as a security and criminal/extremist threat, focusing on community cooperation and de-radicalization programs, while avoiding framing it as a conflict between Islam and the West.	Integration is essential — achieved through social rights, inclusion, and mutual understanding.
Macron (France)	Sees Islamism as both a civilizational and security challenge, as well as a social problem. It should be addressed through de-radicalization, education, social inclusion, and targeted prevention, aiming to integrate Muslims fully into the republican system. Fight Islamism by making Muslims part of the system.	Managed integration — include and integrate to weaken Islamism. Integration is possible, but only under the Republic’s secular and civic terms. We must include to prevent radicalization.
Merz (Germany)	Sees Islamism as both a security issue and a consequence of integration failures, to be addressed pragmatically. Combats it through a combination of security measures and integration policies, emphasizing rule enforcement and conditional integration. Fight Islamism by enforcing rules and conditional integration.	Controlled, conditional integration — based on language, acceptance of secular law, and loyalty to the constitution. Integration is welcome, but only under strict conditions and strong enforcement. We welcome others, but only under our rule
Giorgia Meloni (Italy)	Sees Islamism as an ideological and cultural threat to Europe’s identity. Advocates a robust cultural defense and strict anti‑extremism laws, combined with tougher security measures to limit Islamist influence. Believes Islamism cannot be reformed and therefore must be decisively defeated and prevented from spreading, including by restricting its public presence and protecting national identity. You must crush it and block it from spreading.	Strict border control, selective entry, and strong cultural assimilation. Exclude and restrict to protect against Islamism.
Marine Le Pen (France)	Advocates internal defense measures, strict secularism, and anti-Islamist laws, viewing Islamism as an ideological and civilizational threat. Supports foreign counterterrorism cooperation but opposes military interventions aimed at democratizing other countries. Defend France at home, not wage wars abroad.	Strong restriction, with integration via assimilation only for a small, selected few. Assimilation, not multiculturalism.
Donald Trump (U.S.)	Hard containment through bans and travel restrictions. Sees Islamism as both an ideological and military enemy. Crush radical Islam, protect America first.	Strict, merit-based immigration that serves America’s national interest. Cultural and identity preservation matter as much as security and economics. Accept moderate Muslims, reject extremists.

Demography and fertility

Attitudes toward fertility capture the essence of the ideologies above, reflecting their views on identity, immigration, and more—and often revealing the true reasons behind geopolitical, economic, and social policies across the West.

Leader	Fertility In the West
Sánchez (Spain)	Non relevant. Immigration as solution to aging population and economical needs.
Macron (France)	Supports family + immigration as demographic tools. Personal choice.
Merz (Germany)	Pro-family incentives, moderate approach. Fertility as part of societal stability.
Giorgia Meloni (Italy)	Family central to national renewal; “demographic rebirth”. Fertility is central to national/civilizational survival.
Marine Le Pen (France)	Family as pillar of national identity. Civilization duty.
Donald Trump (U.S.)	Traditional family core to “make nation great again” ethos, Cultural revival.

Summary:

As we can see, there are many perspectives today on what unity should look like, revealing a wide range of possible approaches. Yet the most strikingly absent vision is one that conceives unity as a strong confederation of democratic nations, devoted to defending democratic values over the long term. The vision that, rather than exporting democracy and liberalism through globalization and multiculturalism, seeks to strengthen the unity, shared identity, and social resilience of the democratic world itself: The New Western Doctrine.