Reka

We finished our lunch, the journalist commenting on every passing woman with the old-fashioned sexism characteristic of the French ruling class, while I reflected on the astonishing irresponsibility of the strategy. It may have seemed like a good idea: pitting Macron against the Front National leader was the surest way to ensure the former’s victory. Yet the tactic could be about to backfire, with terrifying consequences.

The rise of Macron is characteristic of the age of spin doctors: it illustrates both their power and their limits. It is truly astonishing that the man who inspired (as personal secretary) and implemented (as finance minister) the policies of President François Hollande could be branded as something radically new.

To achieve this feat, spin doctors resorted to celebrity-building in ways previously unknown in French political life. Macron was new because he was young and handsome, and because he had never been elected before. He appeared repeatedly on the front pages of Paris Match with his wife , whose name is chanted by his supporters at his rallies. In the final weeks of the campaign Macron was so careful not to expose the true nature of his programme (which amounts to little more than the unpopular liberalism-cum-austerity implemented by Hollande) that his speeches degenerated into vacuous exercises in cliche and tautology.

how many would have voted for him, and how many against her? Because it is impossible to answer this question, it would be impossible for Macron to take a hard line against social protests on the grounds that the election validated his programme.

mouais, ça n’a pas empêché Chirac

A few weeks before the election, something important happened that was largely unnoticed: an opinion poll showed that the main concern of the people was neither unemployment nor immigration, but the reform of state institutions and the implementation of a radical sixth republic. There is a deep resentment towards a state they perceive as oppressive, corrupt and violent.

Mélenchon achieved his impressive first-round result because he campaigned on the promise of a radical reform of the state. He was thus able to bring back to politics people who had abstained for years, and also to claw back Le Pen voters. (He cut her lead over him from seven percentage points in 2012 to less than two this year). These voters are not interested in the comparative merits of a Le Pen or a Macron government; their anger is directed at the “deep state” (police, justice, administration). They are even less inclined to vote Macron, because they know – everyone knows – that the second round was deliberately staged. They feel they were set up, and abstention seems to them a dignified act.

Macron has just days to take stock of their anger and adopt the only strategy that can secure his victory against Le Pen: showing humility, and reducing the severity of his programme. The only problem is that he might not be aware how serious the situation is. There is a certain Dangerous Liaisons charm about the microcosm of journalists, intellectuals and politicians who shape (or think they shape) the political destiny of France. According to my lunch companion, Macron has infinite confidence in his charisma and is blissfully unaware of the threat.

Why, then, take the risk of allowing an individual such as Le Pen a path to power, I asked. I received no answer – another woman had caught his attention. France, no doubt, is in good hands.

@fil Exactement ! Ce dont je me souviens de l’entre deux tours de 2002, c’étaient des raisonnements du genre, il faut massivement voter pour Chirac comme cela ça va le contraindre à appliquer une politique de centre droit, et au contraire s’il passe avec de faibles pourcentages, il saura qu’il est élu par ses seules électeurs pour appliquer son seul programme. Et donc du coup il a plus ou moins appliqué le programme de Le Pen.

Cette fois-ci faites bien ce que vous voulez.

@intempestive

Si l’on pouvait s’en laver les mains, ce serait formidable. Mais c’est nous qui mesurons et qui vivons le vrai danger, c’est nous qui savons que ce n’est pas un jeu électoral, que c’est bien plus grave que ça.

Je ne sais pas ce qu’est le nous que tu emploies car je me sens très seule sur tous les points.
Il me semble que le vrai danger n’est pas pour « nous », les petits blancs ex-colonialistes assis devant leur télé qui croient former nation/république/pays/frontière/territoire dans cette tautologie serinée sans cesse du nous égoïste, ou le mot #politique ne veut plus rien dire. Non, il me semble que le danger est réel pour tous les invisibles, les #SANS, les migrants, tous les méprisés de ce système déjà fascisant … et tous ceux qui payeront ce blanc-seing déjà donné à une police avide de violence et fière d’un « nous » nauséabond.

Les #surnuméraires