No matter who wins, France loses. It is part of France's long decline into irrelevance precipated by its adoption of socialism throughout the last few decades. For all intents and purposes France is a dead man walking.
France Heads for a Dreadful Choice
The world rightly worries about Le Pen, but leftist populism is dangerous too.
By
Jeremy Black
April 17, 2017 6:55 p.m. ET
A Marine Le Pen poster in Antibes, France, April 14. Photo: ERIC GAILLARD/REUTERS
Do you fancy retirement at 60, a guaranteed income, a short workweek, and the abolition of fear about the future? Well, move to France and choose among the 11 candidates for the presidency.
Most of the outside world is worried about Marine Le Pen and her National Front, especially in light of her recent demand that France be absolved of responsibility for the deportation of Jews to Nazi death camps because the country was under German occupation. (For the record, the wartime French authorities were complicit.)
But focusing on Ms. Le Pen means playing down the problems posed by the other available choices. She may place ahead of the field in the first round of the election Sunday and is likely, at any rate, to be one of the two candidates that go forward to the second round, on May 7.
But the conventional assumption is that the French vote for their favorite candidate in the first round and, having done so, vote for anyone in the second who will block their least favorite. That process stopped Marine’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in 2002, when he lost to Jacques Chirac 82% to 18%. Those on the left were willing to vote for the Gaullist in order to defeat Mr. Le Pen.
The expectation has been that this process will deliver victory to Emmanuel Macron, the center-left candidate, a former economics minister in François Hollande’s lackluster (to be polite) Socialist government. Mr. Macron is a Tony Blair-like character, strong on talk of renewal and weak on details or policies. In practice, he is part of what ails France—a range of candidates who do not want to explain to the electorate that the world does not owe them a living. François Fillon, the conventional-right candidate, made moves in that direction but has been sunk by scandals about paying his family from public funds.
That leaves Mr. Macron, Ms. Le Pen and the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon as the front-runners. None of them have explained how they will get France to work. Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Mélenchon both promise to reduce the retirement age to 60 from 62. In a country that already protects workers’ rights, they want to provide more protection and bigger pensions. They promise to tax, spend and oppose multinationals and “globalization.”
Polls suggest widespread support for these views, whatever the psephology that delivers the presidential result this year. Just as British politicians cannot touch the sacred cow of the National Health Service, their French counterparts are encouraging a flight from reality that began many years ago.
That poses dangers for France and the European Union. Similarly foolish policies—state control, redistributive taxation and social management—failed under François Mitterrand in 1981-83. That led his minister of economy and finance, Jacques Delors, to become president of the European Commission in 1985 and push through similar policies at the European level. Given the hostility in many EU states to whatever can be decried as “austerity,” the renewal of this theme in France bodes ill for fiscal responsibility across the Continent.
France’s position within NATO may also come into question. Paris has been stalwart in its opposition to Islamist groups in Northwest Africa, but both Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Mélenchon have tilted toward Vladimir Putin, using their countrymen’s disdain for President Trump as an excuse.
More generally, the French election underlines the extent to which the traditional parties of the right are challenged by current developments, a situation seen in 2016 in the American primaries and in former Prime Minister David Cameron’s Brexit defeat. At the same time, the left and the far right encourage the electorate not to ask hard questions about economic growth and social welfare. The principal difference between left and far right rests on competing accounts of national identity and interest. In France, as so often elsewhere, the left does not really offer a convincing version of either, while that of the far right is divisive and backward-looking.
For the conventional European right, the French election throws up serious questions of relevance and popularity, and that in a society in which so many wish to retire early and grumble. An inability to face up to their political situation is part of this malaise.
The focus on Brexit has distracted attention from the EU’s fundamental crisis, posed by a rejection of economic literacy. There is a strong danger of populist swings around the left or the far right, and a challenge both to business and to international commitments. The pro-business moderate right is too weak, and the rest are too antibusiness.
A defeat for Ms. Le Pen appears likely. That would be welcome, but it should not detract from the broader failures of a corporatist social-welfare model that has already done great harm to France and the EU.
Mr. Black’s books include “Europe Since the Seventies” (Reaktion, 2009).
Appeared in the Apr. 18, 2017, print edition.
France Heads for a Dreadful Choice
The world rightly worries about Le Pen, but leftist populism is dangerous too.
By
Jeremy Black
April 17, 2017 6:55 p.m. ET
A Marine Le Pen poster in Antibes, France, April 14. Photo: ERIC GAILLARD/REUTERS
Do you fancy retirement at 60, a guaranteed income, a short workweek, and the abolition of fear about the future? Well, move to France and choose among the 11 candidates for the presidency.
Most of the outside world is worried about Marine Le Pen and her National Front, especially in light of her recent demand that France be absolved of responsibility for the deportation of Jews to Nazi death camps because the country was under German occupation. (For the record, the wartime French authorities were complicit.)
But focusing on Ms. Le Pen means playing down the problems posed by the other available choices. She may place ahead of the field in the first round of the election Sunday and is likely, at any rate, to be one of the two candidates that go forward to the second round, on May 7.
But the conventional assumption is that the French vote for their favorite candidate in the first round and, having done so, vote for anyone in the second who will block their least favorite. That process stopped Marine’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in 2002, when he lost to Jacques Chirac 82% to 18%. Those on the left were willing to vote for the Gaullist in order to defeat Mr. Le Pen.
The expectation has been that this process will deliver victory to Emmanuel Macron, the center-left candidate, a former economics minister in François Hollande’s lackluster (to be polite) Socialist government. Mr. Macron is a Tony Blair-like character, strong on talk of renewal and weak on details or policies. In practice, he is part of what ails France—a range of candidates who do not want to explain to the electorate that the world does not owe them a living. François Fillon, the conventional-right candidate, made moves in that direction but has been sunk by scandals about paying his family from public funds.
That leaves Mr. Macron, Ms. Le Pen and the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon as the front-runners. None of them have explained how they will get France to work. Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Mélenchon both promise to reduce the retirement age to 60 from 62. In a country that already protects workers’ rights, they want to provide more protection and bigger pensions. They promise to tax, spend and oppose multinationals and “globalization.”
Polls suggest widespread support for these views, whatever the psephology that delivers the presidential result this year. Just as British politicians cannot touch the sacred cow of the National Health Service, their French counterparts are encouraging a flight from reality that began many years ago.
That poses dangers for France and the European Union. Similarly foolish policies—state control, redistributive taxation and social management—failed under François Mitterrand in 1981-83. That led his minister of economy and finance, Jacques Delors, to become president of the European Commission in 1985 and push through similar policies at the European level. Given the hostility in many EU states to whatever can be decried as “austerity,” the renewal of this theme in France bodes ill for fiscal responsibility across the Continent.
France’s position within NATO may also come into question. Paris has been stalwart in its opposition to Islamist groups in Northwest Africa, but both Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Mélenchon have tilted toward Vladimir Putin, using their countrymen’s disdain for President Trump as an excuse.
More generally, the French election underlines the extent to which the traditional parties of the right are challenged by current developments, a situation seen in 2016 in the American primaries and in former Prime Minister David Cameron’s Brexit defeat. At the same time, the left and the far right encourage the electorate not to ask hard questions about economic growth and social welfare. The principal difference between left and far right rests on competing accounts of national identity and interest. In France, as so often elsewhere, the left does not really offer a convincing version of either, while that of the far right is divisive and backward-looking.
For the conventional European right, the French election throws up serious questions of relevance and popularity, and that in a society in which so many wish to retire early and grumble. An inability to face up to their political situation is part of this malaise.
The focus on Brexit has distracted attention from the EU’s fundamental crisis, posed by a rejection of economic literacy. There is a strong danger of populist swings around the left or the far right, and a challenge both to business and to international commitments. The pro-business moderate right is too weak, and the rest are too antibusiness.
A defeat for Ms. Le Pen appears likely. That would be welcome, but it should not detract from the broader failures of a corporatist social-welfare model that has already done great harm to France and the EU.
Mr. Black’s books include “Europe Since the Seventies” (Reaktion, 2009).
Appeared in the Apr. 18, 2017, print edition.
