Why not Le Pen?
Here’s an interesting take on the furor surrounding Le Pen’s candidacy, from someone who refuses to think she’s evil incarnate.
I’ve read a lot about her, mostly con. But I don’t think I know enough to opine yet, except to say that her appeal is understandable, given the state of France and Europe (and the EU) today.
I’ll need to stick my head out of my conservative bubble long enough to see if he actually draws reasoned discourse, or if it defaults back to burn-the-heretic calls, not unlike Bret Stephens.
However, to quote the author: “Finally, the Front is part of a worldwide populist-nationalist wave, one that threatens the viability of liberal democracy itself.”
That statement is glaring. In his mind, apparently, liberal democracy is not possible at the nationalist level. That leads me to believe that, in his mind, it’s only possible at the globalist political level? OK, then…
Le Pen has one basic issue: France for the French. It is a message that resonates with the older generation who are outside the convoluted French power structure, aka the French deplorables. Plus, there are some in the millennial generation who realize their future under the status quo is not bright.
Marcon is not an outsider, he is the candidate for maintaining the status quo. Defeating Le Pen is down to scare tactics. According to our French friends, that we communicate with via skype, it looks like the momentum is currently with Le Pen.
Le Pen is certainly not perfect but the alternative is a continent wide Bosnian war.
correction: the alternative is an eventual continent wide Bosnian war.
Midnight (in France) email from French friend says a Paris cop was hit with a molotov cocktail during May Day demonstrations. She also said don’t expect this to be featured on france 24. If Trump really wants to drain the swamp, start with Soros. Many evil contrails originate from there.
It’s been said forever: If there is an issue which concerns the public and the political establishment doesn’t address it, somebody will come along who will, and you might not like him (her).
Trump might be a narcissist. It’s certainly true the man is ignorant of many things(as we all are). Calling him a con man is reasonable given trumpu. But lazy? That shows you’re not paying attention. Or you’ve that blinded yourself.
Dan,
Trump is definitely not lazy. Undisciplined is a better fit. I really like Le Pen. She is focused and has a consistent message. Trump is often all over the place within a very short time span. Some say that is his negotiating style, and that may be true, but there is something to be said for focused consistency.
I lean towards favoring the straight shooter as opposed to the spray and pray style of politics. YMMD
neo: Good article from “The Week.”
I understand Marine Le Pen has distanced — de-demonized — the FN from its unpleasant roots. I feel I would have to be on the ground in France to assess that effort.
But I’ve seen the way the liberal media the world over has smeared Western nationalists as fascist goons, while glossing over all to unsavory connections to Marxism, socialism, communism, and Islamism of liberal leaders.
It seems if any juicy Le Pen quotes were around, I would have heard them by now.
However, other than saying France for France and Muslim immigrants are a problem, which to me is commonsense, Le Pen seems OK. I’m inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and wish her the best in the run-off.
I suspect she’ll do better than expected but it won’t be enough to overcome the coalition against her.
I dare to hope for a Le Pen victory. But the French election process is crappy. LePen led Round One with ~25% of the vote; Macron 2nd, with ~22%. But in 3rd and 4th place were 21% and 20%, and those latter two, one a severe Leftist, were knocked out.
France has never been a functional democracy in the true sense of the word. The establishment rules.
If Le Pen does win….new ball game.
That’s the end of the EU for starters. If she has the votes to win, she has the votes to leave the EU in a referendum.
France has never been a functional democracy in the true sense of the word.
Frog: When I was reading up on history, I kept encountering the flowery term, “fifth republic,” in reference to the French government. I didn’t know what it meant.
I figured the French had been quietly tinkering with their government over the centuries and their current form must be the multiple “new, improved” version.
Turns out it means the French government has collapsed five times, starting with the French Revolution!
Given that Hungary and Poland are not doing as Brussels demands wrt migrants, that part of the EU is failing, and could actually have more impact than LePen’s election because they’re already operating on their own. LePen will have to start fresh and actually throw serious energy into stopping the current French practices before, physics metaphor alert, she can change direction.
Well, Brigitte Bardot is in Le Pen’s corner:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/03/brigitte-bardot-macron-lack-empathy-cold-steel-eyes/
I read the linked piece (and a few more by Millman; definitely not a Rightist, but not an unhinged Leftist).
“I believe that the advocates of populist-nationalism actually have solutions to the profound economic and demographic transformations that are powering their rise across the globe. But I do believe that populism plays an important part in the ecosystem of democracy. And if that banner is going to advance, I might just rather it be carried by someone who cares about our common liberal heritage than by someone hostile or indifferent to them.
In the end, I can’t say that I actually hope for a Le Pen victory. But I can say that I don’t really look forward to a triumph by Macron. The future is not a fixed star, and the center will only hold if it is responsive to the concrete needs of the people, and not merely the abstract demands of a hypothesized future. Before he wins, I’d like to see Macron acknowledge that. And if he won’t, well … why not Le Pen?”
A couple of points – one from an earlier post of Millman’s here: http://theweek.com/articles/692248/why-trump-beating-hasty-retreat-from-populism
“Are the forces of populism on the wane? From a glance around the world, it doesn’t look like it. Take France, where it is increasingly possible, if still less than likely, that the runoff will be a face-off between the National Front’s Marine Le Pen and the far left Jean-Luc Mélenchon. If that happens, the established parties – and even novel parties with establishment roots like Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche! – would be completely shut out, and France would be certain to be led by a populist of either the left or the right.”
So much for his powers of prediction, but this makes sense at the end of his post:
“An even larger reorientation of American foreign and trade policy in an “America First” direction would surely require even greater patience, skill, and determination. These are not character traits generally associated with President Trump. But they are also not the character traits generally associated with populist movements.
Trump’s rapid retreat to the path of least resistance does reflect his own callowness, insecurity, and sloth. But it may also reflect the objective correlation of forces. His strongest supporters don’t really have anywhere else to turn, because their political movement consisted largely of supporting him. So how will they hold him to account for any betrayal?
That power dynamic won’t change until populists stop looking for someone who will speak for them and start organizing to speak for themselves.”
I’m not sure you can get an organization to “speak for itself” without selecting, somehow, one or a few spokesmen. For all his failings, Trump IS the one speaking for populists in America, because no one else has.
As a closer, this great retort by Le Pen is on several sites besides this one:
http://libertyunyielding.com/2017/05/03/french-presidential-debate-le-pen-one-spoke-france/
“France will be led by a woman, either me or Angela Merkel!”
As long as I’m channeling Millman, consider this bit of philosophical subterfuge:
http://theweek.com/articles/690170/how-gop-swiped-mantle-populism-from-democrats
“What’s primary is that the left learn to speak the language of populism, and talk not just in terms of giving the government more power to stop people from doing bad things, but in terms of giving ordinary people more power over their own lives and livelihoods. That populist stance is no substitute for responsible regulation. But it may be a prerequisite to winning sustained public support for it.”
If you can fake authenticity, you’ve got it made.
http://hilobrow.com/2010/06/01/fake-authenticity/
“We have a hunger for something like authenticity, but are easily satisfied by an ersatz facsimile.” – Miles Orvell, The Real Thing: Imitation and Authenticity in American Culture, 1880-1940 (1990).
https://www.exkalibur.com/faking-authenticity/
This is actually a serious article on leadership, but somehow never asks: what if the authentic YOU is not such a great person as you think?
(a sample of the new things I learn interacting on neo’s blog)