Klemens von Metternich (1773–1859), statesman and diplomat of the Austrian Empire, was a subtle, savvy operator. He made Austria an ally of Napoleon, then a neutral, then an enemy when the time was right to stop the French megalomaniac. At the Congress of Vienna, following the Napoleonic Wars, Metternich was key to establishing the foundations of a long peace in Europe, through collaboration among aristocratic states, with Austria as linchpin. This arrangement, known as the Concert of Europe, enabled stability, albeit at a price of deterring not just revolution but also reform. Metternich was polite to those who disagreed with him, a tendency I’ve emulated in dealing with Splice Today commentators.
I’ve been intrigued by Metternich since 1994 when I watched the mediocre film Immortal Beloved, which has a scene where the statesman meets Ludwig van Beethoven and, after cheerfully quoting reports of Beethoven’s prior statements, such as that Metternich should “eat shit,” accepts a corrupt deal to help the composer in a court case in exchange for a symphonic celebration of Metternich’s diplomacy. (There’s no evidence the two men ever met or that Metternich had anything to do with the case.) Metternich’s career was eventually derailed by the tumult known as the Revolutions of 1848, sending him into exile for a decade in England, before he returned to Vienna late in his life.
Metternich’s come up lately as relevant to current political events, in diverse contexts. Economist-blogger Noah Smith has presented a “Metternich-Lindbergh theory” of Trump administration foreign policy. Smith writes that “ideologically, the MAGA movement is inclined to seek something like the Concert of Europe — a triple alliance with Russia and China to tamp down on dissent, reverse immigration flows, and so on. Of course this wouldn’t look like the formal institutions Metternich devised, but an informal partnership. The key would be to reduce great-power tensions and instead focus on internal ideological battles.” This geopolitical ambition, Smith points out, would resemble Charles Lindbergh’s 1930s call for the U.S. to concentrate on the Western Hemisphere. There’d be spheres of influence, with Russia and China dominating Europe and Asia, respectively.
Trump’s foreign policy, Smith argues, aims at facilitating repression of domestic opponents. This is plausible, given Trump’s evocations of the “enemy within,” and how right-wing support for a repressive agenda has risen in response to left-wing movements such as Black Lives Matter. Smith points out, though: “Even if you hate progressivism, Metternich-Lindbergh is a bad idea,” as it’ll divide the GOP; moreover, a U.S. that’s betrayed allies will lack power and credibility to prevent China from gaining sway in our hemisphere. (Smith’s alternative theory, which he sees as less likely, is that Trump’s foreign policy priority is standing up to China, aided by Russia; if this “reverse Kissinger” theory’s true, recent actions that strengthen China, such as destroying USAID and aiding TikTok, are best explained as stupidity.)
Victor Hale, a Substack writer who advocates “radical federalism,” sees Metternich as a guide to how states can work together to counter power grabs by the Trump administration. He notes that Metternich “structured borders, alliances, and treaties so that any attack on Austria would destabilize the entire continent,” and that “Austria remained a dominant power despite its internal weaknesses, because Metternich ensured that its influence was too embedded to remove.” He argues that states should arrange for joint action, including a formal compact for mutual economic and legal action to counter hostile federal moves, such as threatening a cut-off of funds to a state, or enforcing regulations selectively. Hale writes: “Metternich never allowed Austria to stand alone—every attack on Austria triggered a broader crisis. The same must be true for states resisting federal overreach.”
Hale argues for “parallel governance” structures, such as state agency plans to circumvent or replace federal agencies that have become adversarial or ceased to function properly. While governments of blue states will be the ones most eager to make such preparations, Hale contends, red state officials also have incentives to defend themselves against a domineering federal government. All this is keeping with how the Austrian Empire developed a complex network of aligned powers. Hale: “Metternich saved Austria not by defeating its enemies outright, but by building a system where any attack on Austria would unravel the European order itself. Radical Federalism must do the same.”
A 2021 article, “Why Metternich Matters,” by Artem Ilyanok at The Columbia Spectator, argued that Metternich had “a skill we all ought to have: He learned to make himself an objective observer in his own world. Whenever Metternich visited a city for the first time, he made it a habit to seek out the highest point around, climb up to it, and map out his surroundings. His approach to diplomacy was remarkably similar.” Ilyanok wrote that Metternich “made a conscious effort to be well-informed, even to the perspectives of his adversaries. He regularly read newspapers from all across the continent, including radical ones. Indeed, while in exile in England, Metternich eagerly participated in public debate and even wrote for newspapers including the Times, the Morning Chronicle, and the Quarterly Review.”
In a time of massive misinformation, people who seek out material unpalatable to their point of view may ultimately have an advantage. It’s just one way Metternich was ahead of his time.
—Kenneth Silber is author of In DeWitt’s Footsteps: Seeing History on the Erie Canal. Follow him on Bluesky
