02/05/2025
On the Presidential Elections in Romania, The Guardian Takes a Left (and Wrong) Turn 🇹🇩
The web’s awash in commentary about Sunday’s presidential elections in Romania. The Guardian, through its Europe correspondent, John Henley, takes aim at George Simion for opposing same s*x marriage. For which reason, media columnists say, he’s not fit to be president. Seemingly brimming with joy, they celebrate the unpardonable judicial subversion of Romania’s democracy, acclaiming the Constitutional Court’s disbarment of Calin Georgescu – whom they call “a far right candidate”- from running for the top post.
There’s not much novelty or insight in John Henley’s recent post, just an insistent rehashing of the old and tired arguments routinely made by leftists about Romania’s presidential elections. A “populist” win, Henley wrote, could result in a double whammy for the West: a Romania hostile to both the EU and NATO. Europe does not need Simion, Henley writes, but prefers any of the other candidates. Simion as President would be problematic because “the EU does not want another disruptive sovereigntist figure in the region alongside Hungary and Slovakia.”
Henley’s vociferous labeling of Simion escalates, claiming he “is fiercely critical of the EU’s leadership and aims to stop military aid to Ukraine.” And herein lies the problem, not only for The Guardian but for all other leftists who write on the topic: Simion and Romania’s conservatives are neither anti-EU nor anti-NATO, and on Ukraine they emphasize Romania has too little to afford to offer anything of substance.
I know these details because I ran for the European Parliament last year and had come to know Simion fairly well, as I did the candidates who ran on the same ticket as me.
Simion is very much pro-family, a traditionalist, and a man who frequently resorts to Christian language and traditional values to mobilize his base. He’s doing this not only to differentiate his political movement from the rest but also because what he stands for genuinely comports with his personal convictions and values.
I have attended many public rallies where Simion spoke.
Everywhere, consistently, convincingly and without reservation he emphasized he is pro-NATO, and stressed the need for Romania to stay in the European Union. His criticisms of the EU - in my opinion real and meritorious - are not out of the ordinary. For one, his complaints about Brussels’ encroachment on national sovereignty are not indigenous. He simply repeats what others have said on the topic before him. The British have expressed the same concerns in 2015 when they voted to leave the European Union. Before taking this ultimate step, Prime Minister Cameron tried to work with the European Union to safeguard the UK’s interests, including national sovereignty, but to no avail.
The concern about the wiping out of national sovereignty in the UE is widespread throughout the EU. Italy is one example, along with Holland, Germany, and France. Thus, this worry is not limited only to Hungary or Slovakia. Macron, too, repeats his slogan that France must regain its national sovereignty, even though he does so by reference to the United States and the rest of the world, but not the EU. Or, in the same vein, should we consider France’s apprehension at everything German in the European Union as reflecting an extremist position? Surely not.
Why then this hypocrisy when it comes to Romania or Simion, when major European leaders – whom the media considers level-headed express identical concerns? After all, Simion is no less pro-NATO than Macron or Meloni.
A major plus for Simion when compared to the other candidates is the large number of people on his team who are highly educated, experts in their fields, professionals who have been educated and trained in the top universities of Europe and the United States. I have met them on the campaign trail. Some of them have worked in the United States and France in the academia. Others in prestigious scientific establishments. None of them have I ever heard say they wanted Romania to exit the European Union or NATO. Nor have any of them ever said anything that even remotely resembled a pro-Russian or pro-Putin stand.
It is easily inferable that a Trump Administration would prefer a conservative at Cortoceni. By virtue of his age, Simion does not belong to the old guard and does not have his hands filthened by association with communism. On the other hand, however, Antonescu, one of the three main contenders, was an informant for the Securitate, the much feared secret police of the Ceausescu regime. Western media is suspiciously silent on this topic, when it shouldn’t be.
Simion has more in common with the younger generation of conservative leaders in Europe and the United States, whereas his opponents don’t. The future belongs to conservatism and its leaders. In this regard, Romania should show the rest of Europe that things can be righted, by ending a 35-year rule of political corruption, as well as decades of a progressive bent in its political ranks.
Electing Simion as President would be a decisive and giant step forward for Romania in righting a ship which is about to sink.
