I missed Wednesday evening’s debate—as I did the first one two weeks ago—but caught parts of it later. It was good, at least on form. And as one knows, form is as important as substance in these things. French politicians are invariably articulate and can give good speeches without teleprompters or even a text (cf. their American counterparts). The substance is a different matter. The PS candidates are all smart but, like politicians everywhere, can occasionally talk nonsense (and often more than occasionally). E.g. Ségolène Royal pledging to outlaw “stock market driven layoffs” (yeah, Ségolène, if you’re somehow elected Présidente de la République, you just go ahead and try to make good on that one…). And then there’s Arnaud Montebourg’s connerie on démondialisation (deglobalization), which he has spelled out in detail in an 87 page pamphlet and as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign (and which is prefaced by the professional illuminé Emmanuel Todd). I am reluctant to criticize Montebourg too severely—as he kindly complimented me on my talk at a conference in Tunisia last April (his keynote speech was also very good; he’s an excellent speaker)—but in reading his pamphlet I was filled with dismay that some French Socialists have yet to shed their reflex of promising monts et merveilles when in opposition and then naturally being unable to deliver once elected. If Montebourg is elected President—which he won’t be—does he really intend to go to Brussels and Berlin with his démondialisation project? If so, what kind of reception does he honestly think he’ll get? (Answer: this).
But Montebourg knows that he has no chance of being the PS nominee—that this is just a dry run for 2017 or ’22—and is positioning himself as the standard-bearer of the left wing of the party (and pushing Benoît Hamon to the side). Manuel Valls is doing the same thing on the PS’ right (filling the slot left by Jean-Marie Bockel). I used to think that Valls was a breath of fresh air in the party but he’s lurching a little too far to the right, particularly on immigration and insécurité (the two most demagogued issues in French politics). He’s also too hot tempered, or comes across that way. Not good for a politician. Another thing about Montebourg and Valls: they’re the youngest candidates—not yet 50—but in the first debate took the most hardline position against legalizing/decriminalizing cannabis (for this reason alone I pronounced Jean-Michel Baylet—who’s for legalization—the winner of that debate). It’s too bad they weren’t asked by one of the journalist-moderators if they had ever smoked cannabis themselves (the lack of debate on this issue in France is striking; maybe I’ll do a future post on the subject).
I didn’t watch enough of the debate to get a sense of how François Hollande and Martine Aubry—the nominee will be one of the two—came off overall. Hollande looked like he was taking the high road—and that’s what the pundits said—and trying not to be controversial, though his contrat de génération plan to deal with youth and senior unemployment is being critiqued by the other candidates, as well as by the unions. Martine Aubry’s pledge to add 10,000 policemen is ridiculous. France has more than enough cops. They just need to be deployed differently (and which would involve radically decentralizing the police, a taboo subject, to say the least). What the Socialists have to say on reforming the tax code is interesting but a number of their economic proposals—e.g. on financial regulation—can only be achieved at the supra-national EU level. If Hollande or Aubry is elected next May, his/her margin of manoeuvre will be limited. Whatever they say today will not have much bearing on what they’ll eventually do in office. Both are smart and have the experience and stature to be President. Ten years ago I told my American students here that Martine Aubry would likely be France’s first woman President. Jacques Chirac told her likewise. She was really very impressive in the 1990s. But as minister of social affairs in the gauche plurielle government the RTT law (réduction du temps de travail, on the 35-hour work week) was hung around her neck—the law was actually DSK’s idea; Aubry thought it was a grosse connerie—and which caused her poll numbers to permanently drop. She’s also lost her edge personally over the past decade. She’s become dull in my mind, giving the impression that her heart’s not really in it. Doesn’t have that fire in the belly. She is also known for being brusque with those in her inner circle. In my book a politician who denigrates and/or lords it over his/her subordinates is displaying a failure of character that almost disqualifies him/her from being President. Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal are both like this (this is known). Chirac and Mitterrand were not. François Hollande is not either. For that reason, among several others, I’ll likely vote for him over Aubry on October 9th/16th.
For analyses of the primary, this one from Mediapart (subscribers only, sorry) is good. Also Thomas Legrand’s commentary on France Inter this morning
Hier s’est déroulé le deuxième débat entre les socialistes, sans véritables affrontements, du moins entre les deux favoris !
Oui, ni même d’écarts programmatiques assez saillants entre Martine Aubry et François Hollande susceptibles de renseigner les hésitants. Leur passe d’armes au pistolet à bouchons sur le contrat de génération avait plus à voir avec un débat d’experts en mécanique sociale qu’avec un affrontement entre deux conceptions présidentielles opposées. Dans une paisible ambiance de tutoiement qui ressemblait à ce que serait une réunion de la section PS des Sœurs de la Charité, les socialistes ont donc réussi à occuper à leur avantage le terrain pendant que l’actualité de droite tournait toujours autour des affaires. Encore une fois, Arnaud Montebourg et Manuel Valls auront pu tirer avantage du débat. Eux, se sont affrontés un peu rudement, (au pistolet à eau, disons !) sachant que cette audace n’insultait pas l’avenir puisqu’ aucun des deux ne devrait être, à la fin, le candidat désigné. Jean-Michel Baylet, lui s’est livré à un exercice plutôt sympathique d’enfonçage de portes ouvertes humanistes, de truismes républicains qui ne font pas de mal à rappeler de temps en temps mais qui ne peuvent tenir lieu de programme. Revenons aux deux benjamins (qui approchent quand même de la cinquantaine) : Arnaud Montebourg est le seul à développer des thèses alternatives à la rigueur ambiante. Protectionnisme européen, démondialisation, ce sont des solutions qui paraissent peu compatibles avec le programme originel du parti socialiste. Etant le seul à tenir un discours que l’on pourrait qualifier de néo-mélanchonien, il pourrait en bénéficier dans les urnes des primaires le 9 octobre.
On a vu aussi Manuel Valls cultiver sa dissidence par rapport au programme socialiste…
Oui mais, mise à part la question de la TVA sociale, Manuel Valls se distingue maintenant surtout sur le thème de l’immigration. L’immigration choisie, un discours de fermeté sur les sans papiers, des propos volontairement dépourvus de la compassion minimum qui sied au discours habituel des socialistes. Il se distingue encore une fois en passant par la droite de son parti. Ce qui ne devrait pas manquer d’inquiéter l’aile gauche puisque ce que pensent et ce que disent aujourd’hui les principaux responsables socialistes sur la sécurité ou même sur la dette avait été d’abord exprimé par Manuel Valls ces dernières années. Plus généralement, ces débats de la primaire constituent une formidable tribune pour les socialistes qui sont en train de prouver (même si l’épreuve de vérité aura lieu au lendemain de la désignation de l’un d’entre eux et de leur capacité à se réunir) que la primaire n’est pas la machine à perdre, la boite à baffes que leurs détracteurs dénonçaient. Pour les socialistes, ces débats ont du bon, pour le débat d’idées, en revanche, on reste sur sa faim. C’est un exercice finalement assez facile, quatre heures d’antenne à la télé et à la radio, bientôt six heures, de rabâchage sans contradicteurs journalistiques ou politiques. Personne pour contester des chiffres ou des faits en direct, ou pour mettre le doigt sur des contradictions. Un bel exemple de hold-up médiatique, légal et très rentable, qui va sûrement faire réfléchir toutes les autres formations politiques pour 2017, quoiqu’elles en disent aujourd’hui.
The third and final debate will be on October 5th.