French Presidential elections

[littlebabyjesus]

If that's what he said then I disagree with him (cos I don't necessarily think they would fuck it up) but I haven't been reading the thread tbh so I haven't really read his posts.

I do kinda sympathise with the view that Fillon or someone would just be 'kicking the can down the road' but like nobody has any idea what will happen in 2022 let alone in December or next Thursday.

Sorry, but I'm rehashing stuff I've already said. Opposition to fillon, if it were him, would never cease, even in a vote for him. Hence the clothes peg.

What I absolutely reject is the idea that a Le Pen presidency wouldn't be so bad because she would be weak. While I would agree that she would be weak, I entirely reject the idea that her presidency would not mean a boost to all the ideas that she stands for. It absolutely would.

 

[frogwoman]

yeah it definitely would coz she'd be the president, and it would be an absolute shit show for muslims and any other minorities in france. it would definitely legitimise it even if any concrete effects were simply in terms of an increase in violence etc rather than being backed up by the state

although, look what's happened in hungary in the last couple of years. the guy started out as a populist sort of soft nationalist and ended up basically consolidating a situation where his party is permanently in power. although interestingly enough he legitimises his rule by pointing to jobbik and groups like that, who he's actually encouraged, and going 'see look at that, could be alot worse'. and a lot of EU states are willing to tolerate him because of the fear of jobbik getting in when his government is basically far right.

 

[frogwoman]

Is Fillon even going to get in? I thought he was basically destroyed by that scandal. Looked like he was out of the running after penelopegate although ive not been following this story at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is Fillon even going to get in? I thought he was basically destroyed by that scandal. Looked like he was out of the running after penelopegate although ive not been following this story at all.

Sure. I was using him as the strongest example of my point. He is the French Thatcher, basically. I would potentially vote for Thatcher against le pen. That's the point. But in no way would that be any kind of endorsement of Thatcher.

 

[frogwoman]

tbh fillon and le pen are pretty much the same thing politically except fillon is the member of a mainstream political party and has some governing experience. i agree that if i was there i would probably vote for macron or someone if those were the choices though, but fillon is almost the same as le pen, he's mad even by the standards of french right wingers, he once wrote a book saying that islam was a threat to the world. when oddly enough le pen's actually tried on and off to detoxify her brand among some parts of the muslim community for instance.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbh fillon and le pen are pretty much the same thing politically except fillon is the member of a mainstream political party and has some governing experience.

I don't agree. The FN is explicit nationalism, from a r/w philosophical veiwpoint: there is an essential Frenchness to being French. Just look at the records of the local govts controlled by the FN to see what that means in practical terms.

Even Thatcher wasn't that. And it pains me to even type that, believe me.

 

[frogwoman]

I agree that there's a qualitative difference between far right nationalists and standard conservatives, even ones like thatcher. however, in the case of fillon he undoubtedly does harbour some very extreme views even if he prioritises a neo-liberal economic policy. he could try to put those aside but i could see him being very tough on eg immigration, in much the same way as theresa may is being even though the tory party isn't based around populist nationalism.

and i also think that in the past few years basically all of the french parties have adopted nationalist rhetoric, i mean what the fuck was Valls going on about how Marianne's boobs were a symbol of the French republic when defending the burkini ban. that's due to the FN's rhetoric becoming legitimised, but the mainstream right and left have basically shifted the ground of that debate in France because they think it will appeal to more voters, as well as distract attention from whatever social disasters they've created.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and i also think that in the past few years basically all of the french parties have adopted nationalist rhetoric, i mean what the fuck was Valls going on about how Marianne's boobs were a symbol of the French republic when defending the burkini ban.

Absolutely. As UK parties have adopted UKIP rhetoric.

And like UKIP, the FN wins even when it loses if its agenda is coopted by the mainstream. UKIP's biggest victory has been to turn brexit into all about immigration. Even if it loses this year, the FN will have similar victories.

But to repeat, the idea that an FN president doesn't make everything worse is bonkers.

 

[ska invita]

agree with all the above lbj + froggy
im behind on my urban reading and cant get stuck in this week much but will write a response to this one post below, even if it repeats whats been said

Yes, I know this. I am factoring that information into my opinion as to why Le Pen winning wouldn't be a complete disaster and may actually be preferable to a win down the road after the FN is able to consolidate more power under a Macron government.

I still think this kind of calculation is incredibly dangerous and massively risky. RS and Dt have been arguing against the lesser of two evils position, but this is also a lesser of two calculation (better she win now than later), but taken to a degree with potentially much worse consequences.

In your version J Ed she inherits power in the middle of a state of emergency, and at a time when its already a crime to be not-white-whilst-in-France. If another financial crisis hits in the next four years (which many think it will), Le Pen will have a field day with that shock doctrine moment too. Even without that, how easy would it be to manipulate similar moments to extend and consolidate power?

These are massive risks with a massive price... its a petri dish full of just the bacteria the FN can best breed best on. The repercussions affect the whole of Europe.

The other way around there is reason to believe they might never get in power. Good. Surely that is the best scenario and the one to hold out for.

There is no way of running these scenarios to see what the different outcomes might be, and I do follow your logic that out of all alternate futures her winning and failing now might be the safest, but not only does it seem unlikely to me, its a future that could in turn be catastrophic.



*I've tried but I still dont see the case that:" stopping X getting elected (by voting for these shits)' is actually helpful to the hard-right and is one of the reasons they are gaining strength" ....how much more helpful and strength-gaining can you get than letting them actually win a presidential election at this ideal time for them? We've already been round this block though, not sure its worth going around one more time.

Also I have to say that the idea that a weak fascist president is preferable in some ways to a neoliberal alternative for tactical reasons is repugnant to me. If people think like that, I think they've lost it. I cannot sign up to any political position that thinks that way.

have to agree...am trying to understand the arguments to justify it, but its not taking

 

[frogwoman]

But to repeat, the idea that an FN president doesn't make everything worse is bonkers.

i'd agree with that.

 

[Raheem]

I agree that there's a qualitative difference between far right nationalists and standard conservatives, even ones like thatcher. however, in the case of fillon he undoubtedly does harbour some very extreme views even if he prioritises a neo-liberal economic policy. he could try to put those aside but i could see him being very tough on eg immigration, in much the same way as theresa may is being even though the tory party isn't based around populist nationalism.

and i also think that in the past few years basically all of the french parties have adopted nationalist rhetoric, i mean what the fuck was Valls going on about how Marianne's boobs were a symbol of the French republic when defending the burkini ban. that's due to the FN's rhetoric becoming legitimised, but the mainstream right and left have basically shifted the ground of that debate in France because they think it will appeal to more voters, as well as distract attention from whatever social disasters they've created.

Valls is vile. He's done so much pandering to the far-right it's a surprise he never started eating bamboo. At least we know he's out of the running.

 

[emanymton]

I think it's more a case of arguing that Fillon and the like are the same type of people that created the conditions that led to Le Pen and so on getting so successful. Tbh if I lived there I would probably vote against Le Pen tbh as the 'lesser of two evils' but in the long term that's not great towards building an alternative in terms of electoral politics let alone anything else. I don't think people who vote against Le pen purely to stop the fash getting in are wrong though (and tbh I'd do it if I was there!) as long as they acknowledge that's not a long term solution

This is spot on. It can be a useful short term tactic, but is usless as a long term stratergy.

 

[emanymton]

My understanding:

"Let them win and fuck it all up this time rather than gaining power so that they can do it next time properly."

Are you suggesting this is what redsquirrel has been arguing?

I didn't really get that at all. Although some poster have suggested that I didn't think RS was one.

My understanding of what has generally been argued, is that defeating the FN is not something that can be done at the ballet box and that a strategy that focuses on voting whoever to keep the FN out is not only going to be ineffectual long term, but is actally counterproductive. Beating the FN in an election should in no way be seen as actually beating them. As I said above my view is that it can be useful short term but as a long term strategy it is doomed.

 

[emanymton]

I also think it is worth considering that vote x to keep out y is not a single position but a range of positions. At one extreme there is the person who makes a personal choice and tells no one, at the other end is the person who loudly bangs a drum proclaiming this is how we beat them and calls anyone who disagress a racist and an appeaser.

 

[chilango]

I also think it is worth considering that vote x to keep out y is not a single position but a range of positions. At one extreme there is the person who makes a personal choice and tells no one, at the other end is the person who loudly bangs a drum proclaiming this is how we beat them and calls anyone who disagress a racist and an appeaser.

I was going to make a similar point.

There is a difference between as an individual quietly voting against Le Pen and advocating a collective, organised vote against Le Pen.

A big difference.

But, then, as I queried up thread, if you come to the conclusion that actually beating le Pen at the Ballot box is important then how far do you go in trying to ensure that that happens?

 

[hot air baboon]

Le Pen Wins Over Women Voters Who Feel Left Behind in France

The 48-year-old National Front leader has already rallied some 2 million additional female voters to her cause since her last run for president in 2012 and she’s betting more will follow.

“Women are the key,” said Nonna Mayer, a researcher at the Sciences Po institute in Paris who has studied the National Front for 25 years. “These women often abstain and now they are backing Le Pen to protect their jobs and their security.”

While women make up just over half of the electorate in France they are far less likely to turn out than men, offering a well of untapped support for the candidate who manages to tune into their concerns.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was going to make a similar point.

There is a difference between as an individual quietly voting against Le Pen and advocating a collective, organised vote against Le Pen.

A big difference.

But, then, as I queried up thread, if you come to the conclusion that actually beating le Pen at the Ballot box is important then how far do you go in trying to ensure that that happens?

It is possible to be towards one end of the scale without being accusatory towards those who disagree. I'd put myself there - yes, if I were French, I would be voting in the second round if Le Pen got through. I wouldn't do so silently - I'd tell people what I was doing and why and hope that they would do the same thing. But that doesn't have to involve me self-righteously judging anyone who boycotted the whole thing in disgust. I would share their disgust after all.

 

[ska invita]

Teenagers blockade Paris schools in protest over alleged police rape
"More than a dozen high schools targeted and vehicles set ablaze amid anger at police after alleged assault on young black man"

Teenage demonstrators have blockaded more than a dozen high schools in and around Paris, mounting makeshift barricades and setting fire to cars, scooters and rubbish bins, in protest at the alleged rape of a young black man by police.

Authorities said nine students were arrested in the suburb of Clichy after about 100 youths set two cars and a motorbike alight, threw stones and shattered a shop window .

alleged assault??

 

[redsquirrel]

Are you suggesting this is what redsquirrel has been arguing?

I didn't really get that at all. Although some poster have suggested that I didn't think RS was one.

I never argued such a position.

My understanding of what has generally been argued, is that defeating the FN is not something that can be done at the ballet box and that a strategy that focuses on voting whoever to keep the FN out is not only going to be ineffectual long term, but is actally counterproductive. Beating the FN in an election should in no way be seen as actually beating them.

This basically summarises my position and like you and chilango I see a fundamental difference between an individual voting against Le Pen and a campaign for an anti-FN (or whoever) vote.

 

[redsquirrel]

To repeat myself again, such a situation represents a defeat for the left. That defeat has already happened. If all that is left is to keep a fascist out of power by whatever means necessary, then I say that you put that clothes peg on your nose and you do it. (Literally. I would literally do that, and I would hope that millions of others would do so too.) But you don't let whichever fuck you end up voting for forget that clothes peg - that is also important. Chirac was morally undermined by the most enormous victory he ever had in his political career. A vote to keep out le Pen is not the end of anything. It's simply the end of a particularly inglorious day.

Well I think this post summaries our differences you keep talking about the left. I couldn't really give a stuff about the left, I care about labour.

I don't believe Chirac was "morally undermined" by the victory over Le Pen, and even if he was so f'ing what? The fact that Fillon's government is "morally undermined" isn't going to stop him mounting a massive campaign to attack workers.

And if your tactic worked so well why is the FN now highly likely to make it to the second round and polling higher back than they did back then?

Tbh I don't think abstention in itself is a solution either in the absence of some kind of movement to go with it but I wouldn't condenm anyone for sitting at home in disgust.

But froggy, nobodies arguing that abstention is a solution, or even part of a solution. When I was younger and more po-faced I'd have argued that people should not vote, these days I merely see voting as apolitical. If you want to spend 5/10/15 minutes deciding on whether you like red more than blue, I'm not going to have a go at you. What I am arguing against is the making 'vote X to stop Y' a tactic and campaigning on that basis, I think that's a terrible path to go do because (1) I think the evidence that such a tactic actually strengthens the hard right medium/long term is persuasive, (2) it prioritises the game that are elections over the real political arena and (3) all too often ends up with shit like arguing that non-voters or Green/IWCA/Mélenchon voters have 'let X in' or that its illegitimate for such parties to stand against Labour/PS.

 

[redsquirrel]

My understanding:

"Let them win and fuck it all up this time rather than gaining power so that they can do it next time properly."

As in, they themselves are planning for a proper assault next time in 2022, which may very well be true, but so what? For me, there is no way in which an FN defeat this time is not better than any kind of FN win this year.

If that's what he said then I disagree with him (cos I don't necessarily think they would 'fuck it up') but I haven't been reading the thread tbh so I haven't really read his posts. I don't really have time to at the moment

I've never argued any such thing, not on this thread or any other. I've not even argued that Le Pen would be a 'weak' president. I've simply argued against the tactic of campaigning of anti-FN/BNP/UKIP vote.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've never argued any such thing, not on this thread or any other. I've not even argued that Le Pen would be a 'weak' president.

Fair enough. I may very well have got certain arguments confused.

I was drunk when I posted that, and apologise if I got it wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well I think this post summaries our differences you keep talking about the left. I couldn't really give a stuff about the left, I care about labour.

I don't believe Chirac was "morally undermined" by the victory over Le Pen, and even if he was so f'ing what? The fact that Fillon's government is "morally undermined" isn't going to stop him mounting a massive campaign to attack workers.

And if your tactic worked so well why is the FN now highly likely to make it to the second round and polling higher back than they did back then?

.

I think you're rather misrepresenting me here, mind. 'my tactic' is merely a recourse of last resort in a very narrowly defined circumstance. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than that, and given the topic of the thread, it is posted in response to that topic. Open up another thread on the wider issue of fighting the far right and there will be a different context and different things to say.

 

[frogwoman]

I've never argued any such thing, not on this thread or any other. I've not even argued that Le Pen would be a 'weak' president. I've simply argued against the tactic of campaigning of anti-FN/BNP/UKIP vote.

.
Fair enough. As I said I haven't been reading the thread. You didn't seem to be one of the people saying that though.

 

[frogwoman]

But froggy, nobodies arguing that abstention is a solution, or even part of a solution. When I was younger and more po-faced I'd have argued that people should not vote, these days I merely see voting as apolitical. If you want to spend 5/10/15 minutes deciding on whether you like red more than blue, I'm not going to have a go at you. What I am arguing against is the making 'vote X to stop Y' a tactic and campaigning on that basis, I think that's a terrible path to go do because (1) I think the evidence that such a tactic actually strengthens the hard right medium/long term is persuasive, (2) it prioritises the game that are elections over the real political arena and (3) all too often ends up with shit like arguing that non-voters or Green/IWCA/Mélenchon voters have 'let X in' or that its illegitimate for such parties to stand against Labour/PS.

I agree with you there. See the shit about nonvotrers or Jill Stein voters in the USA which are being blamed for not voting for Hillary

 

[frogwoman]

A couple of people were unhappy with me in Brexit because I spoiled..

 

[redsquirrel]

I agree with you there. See the shit about nonvotrers or Jill Stein voters in the USA which are being blamed for not voting for Hillary

Precisely. Horrible stuff - and brain-poundingly counter-productive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A couple of people were unhappy with me in Brexit because I spoiled..

brexit's a different thing though I think, in that any of the three options - in, out, spoil - were options that could have decent motives behind them.

fwiw, if I had a vote, I'd be voting Melenchon first round. At some point you have to be counted for the thing that is closest to what you actually want.

 

[frogwoman]

brexit's a different thing though I think, in that any of the three options - in, out, spoil - were options that could have decent motives behind them.

fwiw, if I had a vote, I'd be voting Melenchon first round. At some point you have to be counted for the thing that is closest to what you actually want.

Absolutely. But in the aftermath of the vote when tensions were running pretty high some people had a go at me for not staying!

 

[Old Spark]

Not voting wouldnt ever be an option for me but i agree its counterproductive to abuse workers for it.

Non voting as a deliberate strategy seems self indulgent ,I am simon pure etc.Whats important is my personal integrity.Dont vote it only encourages them said Old Ken.

Non voting because of apathy, you dont see the point due to poverty and no hope requires a positive political argument outside of the election or oz style legislation imo.