Posted on 04/26/2002 5:31:50 AM PDT by Pokey78
On Sunday, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the alleged extreme right-wing madman, managed to place second in the first round of the French Presidential election. Since then, many Europhile commentators in the English-speaking world have been attempting to reassure us that the significance of this event has been much overplayed -- Le Pen only got a little more than he usually gets, pure fluke he came second, nothing to see here, move along. The best response to this line of thinking was by the shrewd Internet commentatrix Megan McArdle: "They're completely missing the point, which is that it's hilarious."
Absolutely. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be weeping with laughter at the scenes of France's snot-nosed political elite huffily denouncing Sunday's result as an insult to the honour of the Republic. I was in Paris a couple of weeks ago and I well remember the retired French diplomat who assured me that "a man like George W. Bush is simply not possible in our politics. For a creature of such crude, simplistic and extreme views to be one of the two principal candidates in a presidential election would be inconceivable here. Inconceivable!"
Please, no giggling. Somehow events have so arranged themselves that French electors now face a choice, as the papers see it, between "la droite" et "l'extrême droite." The French people have taken to the streets in angry protests against ... the French people! Which must be a relief to the operators of McDonald's franchises, British lorry drivers and other more traditional targets of their ire, but is still a little weird. Meanwhile, the only thing that stands between M. Le Pen and the Elysée Palace, President Chirac, has declared himself the representative of "the soul of the Republic." In the sense that he's a shifty dissembler with a long history of financial scandal and no political principles, he may be on to something.
While M. Chirac has cast himself as the defender of France, M. Le Pen is apparently the defender of the Jews. While I was over there, he was the only candidate who was seriously affronted by the epidemic of anti-Jew assaults by French Muslims. The Eurosnots told me this was "cynical," given that M. Le Pen is notoriously anti-Jew and not above doing oven jokes in public. But that doesn't necessarily make him cynical. Maybe he just loathes Arabs even more than Jews (which, for linguistic pedants, would make him technically a perfect anti-Semite). Maybe he just resents the Muslims muscling in on his turf: "We strongly object to the Arab attacks on the Jews. That's our job." But, given that Chirac and Jospin brushed off the Jew-bashing epidemic like a speck of dust on their elegant suits, Le Pen's ability to co-opt it into his general tough-on-crime/tough-on-immigrants approach showed at the least a certain political savvy.
Still, despite the racism and bigotry, I resent the characterization of M. Le Pen as "extreme right." I'm an extreme right-wing madman myself, and it takes one to know one. M. Le Pen is an economic protectionist in favour of the minimum wage, lavish subsidies for France's incompetent industries and inefficient agriculture; he's anti-American and fiercely opposed to globalization. In other words, he's got far more in common with Naomi Klein than with me. He would fit right in as a guest host on the CBC's CounterSpin. Even the antipathy toward Jews is more of a left-wing thing these days -- see the EU, UN, Svend and Mary Robinson, etc. Insofar as anyone speaks up for Jews in the West, it's only a few right-wing columnists, Newt Gingrich, Christian conservatives and Mrs. Thatcher -- or, as a reader e-mailed the other day, "all you Hebraic assholes on the right." M. Le Pen is a nationalist and a socialist -- or, if you prefer, a nationalist socialist. Hmm. A bit long but, if you lost a syllable, you might be in business.
But terms like "left" and "right" are irrelevant in French politics. In an advanced technocratic state, where almost any issue worth talking about has been ruled beyond the scope of partisan politics, you might as well throw away the compass. The presidential election was meant to be a contest between the supposedly conservative Chirac and his supposedly socialist Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin. In practice, this boils down to a candidate who's left of right of left of centre, and a candidate who's right of left of right of left of centre. Chirac and Jospin ran on identical platforms -- they're both in favour of high taxes, high unemployment and high crime. So, with no significant policy differences between them, the two candidates were relying on their personal appeal, which, given that one's a fraud and the other's a dullard, was asking rather too much of French voters. Faced with a choice between Eurodee and Eurodum, you can't blame electors for choosing to make it a real race by voting for the one guy running on an openly stated, clearly defined manifesto.
M. Le Pen wants to restrict immigration; Chirac and Jospin think this subject is beneath discussion. Le Pen thinks the euro is a "currency of occupation"; Chospin and Jirac think this subject is beneath discussion. Le Pen wants to pull out of the EU; Chipin and Josrac think this subject is beneath discussion. Le Pen wants to get tough on crime; Chispac and Jorin think this, too, is beneath discussion, and that may have been their mistake. European Union and even immigration are lofty, philosophical issues. But crime is personal. The French are undergoing a terrible wave of criminality, in which thousands of cars are routinely torched for fun and more and more immigrant suburbs are no-go areas for the police. Chirac and Jospin's unwillingness even to address this issue only confirmed their image as the arrogant co-regents of a remote, insulated elite.
Europe's ruling class has effortlessly refined Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death my right not to have to listen to you say it. You might disapprove of what Le Pen says on immigration, but to declare that the subject cannot even be raised is profoundly unhealthy for a democracy. The problem with the old one-party states of Africa and Latin America was that they criminalized dissent: You could no longer criticize the President, you could only kill him. In the two-party one-party states of Europe, a similar process is under way: If the political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising certain topics, then the electorate will turn to unrespectable politicians -- as they're doing in France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere. Le Pen is not an aberration but the logical consequence.
The Eurosnots, of course, learn nothing. President Chirac, for his part, has announced that he will not deign to debate his opponent during the remaining two weeks of the campaign. M. Le Pen beat M. Chirac in nine of France's 22 districts. Unlovely he may be, but he is the legitimate standard-bearer for democratic opposition to Chirac. By refusing to engage, the President is doing a grave disservice to French democracy. Similarly, Gerhard Schroeder, facing difficult electoral prospects this fall, is now warning German conservatives that he will decline to participate in a "campaign of fear" -- i.e., on touchy issues. But the way you defeat poisonous ideas is to expose them to the bracing air of open debate. In Marseilles, they're burning synagogues. In Berlin, the police advise Jews not to leave their homes in skullcaps or other identifying marks of their faith. But Europe's political establishments insist that, on immigration and crime, there's nothing to talk about.
A century and a half ago, Tsar Nicholas I described Turkey as "the sick man of Europe." Today, the sick man of Europe is the European -- the urbane Continental princelings like Chirac and Michel, gliding from capital to capital building their Eutopia, oblivious to the popular will except on those rare occasions, such as Sunday, when the people do something so impertinent they finally catch the eye of their haughty maître d'. I've said before that September 11th will prove to be like the Archduke's assassination in Sarajevo -- one of those events that shatters the known world. To the list of polities destined to slip down the Eurinal of history, we must add the European Union and France's Fifth Republic. The only question is how messy their disintegration will be.
This is exactly what PC tries to do and succeeds on campus and in many corporations. You demonize and if possible, criminalize certain ideas.
When you outlaw ideas, only outlaws will have ideas.
I just checked where we keep all the old stuff and we have two motherboards and various cards with them. One of them has 200 cpu on it. Send me freep mail, I will tell you what I have and for shipping I will send you some of this, its you or the Goodwill!
Steyn is completely on target again, and I think he has a better grasp of European politics than Europeans do.
The Eurosnots are going to lose control as the extent of their failed policies becomes evident to ordinary citizens. We can only hope that their replacements are men and women in the Margaret Thatcher mold rather than in the Adolph Hitler mold.
I guess "challenging" would be more apt....
It is particularly dangerous for the United States of America because in the open suppurating absess infested with impossible-to-assimilate French speaking islamanazis -- the product of the open sewer immigration policy [No "Francophone may be refused entry!] created; in the Quebec Province of the unfriendly little country [Check its un voting record!] to our North; by the now, thank God, dead manifestation of Evil called Pierre Trudeaux; there is a well established Trojan Horse from whose bowels spew forth the excrement programmed to destroy Our Beloved FRaternal Republic and the Judeo-Christian/Western ["Human," that is] Civilization that we we vanguard.
Okay, a little OT, but, how do you pronounce "Taoiseach"?
Tee-Shock
Right, Happygal?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha... *cough* *sputter* *gasp for breath* *wipe up coffee* ...hahahahahahahahahahaha!
This guy is razor sharp.
Thanks,
knews hound
I loved this article.
I'm writing from France now, we've been here around 8 months. Everything he says here is so true, it's hard to believe that he's not living here to be so incisive.
Chirac is so elitist that it oozes from his voice, it's sickening.
I've lived in the 'banlieu' (suburbs) and Paris. Outside Paris is the worst.
And not just the Jews, the Arabs have made much of it UNBEARABLE for the average frenchman.
I was encouraged by the high percentage that Le Pen garnered. (Although I may be one of the first thrown out!) It showed that the French are willing to give the police some 'teeth', and they see clearly their country slipping away from them.
I lived here 20 years ago, and it's unbelievable how it has deteriated. It's FILTHY, and unpleasant. (let's not speak about the dog.... situation)
My hope was that Chirac would have a little humility and learn something from the French voters' message;... but alas, not to be. He's refusing to debate. (Like Steyn says: 'It's beneath them.')
Thanks again,
Best, Sarah
Oh man, Mark Steyn is SO GOOD!! His intentions mix-ups of the names of Jospin and Chirac, i.e. Chipin and Josrac, was just MASTERFUL in its description of how interchangeable those two guys actually are!
Someone please enlighten me. If Le Pen actually gets some serious votes and threatens Chirac (though doesn't win) does his 'party' get some seats in the government? I have studiously avoided trying to find out how the French Govt. runs because frankly it is unimportant, but I was just curious.
"...the way you defeat poisonous ideas is to expose them to the bracing air of open debate"
I love the bit about EUtopia and EUrinals!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.