[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below] [4th update below]
Faithful reader and regular commentator Mitch Guthman, responding to my post of last week, thinks she can and likely will. I say no way. Here’s why.
Five reasons. First—and this isn’t really a reason, just a preliminary point—, I am very reluctant to handicap an election three years down the road, as all sorts of things will obviously happen between now and then to changer la donne. It’s fun to speculate but is, objectively speaking, a waste of time.
That said—and secondly—I will continue to assert that Marine Le Pen has no chance—I repeat, no chance whatever—of being elected President of the Republic. I assert this because no candidate with negative poll ratings as high as MLP’s—i.e. in the 60s—can possibly win the presidency. It has never happened in the history of an advanced democracy and is not going to happen in France in 2017. Now if MLP’s negative numbers start to drop significantly—and, concomitantly, her favorable ratings rise—then I may change my tune. And I will definitely change that tune if the curves cross. But there is no reason to believe that this will or even can happen. The Le Pen name is radioactive—absolutely, totally toxic—for the entire left, center, and moderate right. As for those who have been casting protest votes for the FN in recent elections, a significant number would think twice about doing so if they actually thought the FN had a chance of winning (à propos, according to one survey in 2002 fully half of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s voters in the presidential election that year said that they would not have voted for him if they had thought he had a real chance of winning).
Thirdly, if there were a freak accident and with MLP somehow winning the presidency, she would be unable to govern. There is no way she would have anything close to a majority in the National Assembly (ergo, there would be no FN PM or government). And a significant portion of the haute fonction publique—where the FN has precious few members or sympathizers—would decline to cooperate with her. For the anecdote, back in 2002 I asked an énarque member of the Cour des Comptes whom I knew if he and his colleagues would have cooperated with Jean-Marie Le Pen had he won that year. His response was a categorical no. A Marine Le Pen presidency would thus not only be a fiasco from Day One but also bring about a constitutional crisis.
Fourthly, France is a mature democracy and the French citizenry is—appearances sometimes to the contrary—a mature electorate. French voters are not going to embark on some crazy adventure with a populist party of the extreme right, and that has no experience whatever in government to boot. The gravity of the French electorate has been on the center-right for most of the past century and remains so today. In this respect, it needs to be said that while the economic situation in France is bad it is not catastrophic. France is not Greece—as Paul Krugman has reminded us more than once—and is not going to be. Mitch’s assertion that France is being subjected to “murderous austerity” is hyperbole. The French are morose and fearful for the future—and many for good reason—but the majority of people are working and will continue to. As for the increasing numbers who are unemployed and excluded from mainstream society, they will retreat into political abstention rather than vote en masse for the FN.
Fifthly, if MLP makes it to the 2nd round of the election, she will most certainly face the candidate of the UMP (or whatever the UMP eventually renames itself). And the latter will win. Period. My dread fear is that that candidate will be Sarkozy (and rid of his legal problems). If so, we’ll have to live with the S.O.B. for another five years. The mere prospect of that depresses me to no end.
UPDATE: Slate.fr’s Eric Dupin, echoing my viewpoint, says “Non, le FN n’est pas aux portes du pouvoir.” (September 9th)
2nd UPDATE: A poll conducted by Odoxa—a new polling institute founded by a couple of former directors at BVA—for I>Télé-CQFD-Le Parisien-Aujourd’hui reveals that “65% des Français considèrent que le FN n’a pas la capacité de gouverner [la France]…” It indeed does not make sense, IMHO, that large numbers of Frenchmen and women would vote for a party to govern France that they do not believe has the ability to govern France… Ça n’a pas de sens… (September 13th)
3rd UPDATE: And then there’s the circus in FN-governed Hayange (here, here, and here). Does one really imagine that the French electorate will send these whack jobs to the Élysée and Matignon? (September 15th)
4th UPDATE: France Inter political editorialist Thomas Legrand poses the question: “Le Pen peut-elle arriver au pouvoir en 2017?” He says yes, that Marine LP could indeed win the presidential election—that this is within the realm of the possible—but there is no way the FN can win the legislative elections that will follow. A Marine LP victory in ’17 will thus mechanically lead to an institutional crisis. (December 18th)
The sheer fact that this is being discussed makes me happy to have emigrated about 10000km from home. I hope you’re right.
On point 5, it took me about 15 sec on that fateful evening in 2002 to decide to vote Chirac for the first and only time in my life. If I am to be faced by Sarkozy and MLP, I will apply Duclos’ old saying: bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet, I’m staying home. Their only difference is on Europe and that’s not worth having to choose between the two S.O.B.
I entirely agree, Bernard. If it’s Sarko and MLP in the 2e tour in ’17, I’m voting ‘blanc’.
“The gravity of the French electorate has been on the center-right for most of the past century and remains so today. In this respect, it needs to be said that while the economic situation in France is bad it is not catastrophic. France is not Greece—as Paul Krugman has reminded us more than once—and is not going to be. Mitch’s assertion that France is being subjected to “murderous austerity” is hyperbole. The French are morose and fearful for the future—and many for good reason—but the majority of people are working and will continue to.”
I would definitely agree with this characterization, the social/temperamental aspect and the economic one. And thanks to this, I remain somewhat perplexed by the degree of widespread disapproval that Hollande’s administration has faced. I’m deeply frustrated by his policy choices and command of the political situation, but I’m a high-information political observer. Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to the relative sociological verities of political science about modern, mature democracies, a sharp cross-partisan swing into disapproval shouldn’t be the result of an administration presiding over a stagnant but not by any means wholly collapsing economy during peacetime. I’d imagine approval ratings in the 30s-40s, not in the teens. For the majority of citizens in France–ordinary voters little engaged in participating in or following the daily news of political life, most employed or retired with benefits–life has gone on, not exactly smoothly, but neither has it been that outrageously disruptive either. By the numbers, French citizens seem more dissatisfied with their political representatives than citizens in Greece or Spain or Italy with theirs — and that’s somewhat surprising.
PF: What is notable about Hollande’s disastrously low poll numbers – and compared to Sarkozy’s, which did not descend below the high 20s – is the discontent among core PS voters, the latter of whom voted for Hollande in the 2011 PS primary less out of adhesion to his program – such as it was (does anyone remember his program? did he even have a program?) – or to his person than the fact that he was perceived as the strongest candidate against Sarkozy. Hollande was the anti-Sarko, period. So when he took office in May 2012 right-wing voters – the majority of whom cannot abide the idea of a Socialist president of the republic – were hostile to him from the get go, but without him having a really rock solid base on the left. The gauche de la gauche (Front de Gauche etc) was wary and many PS voters only lukewarm; the latter were happy that the left was back in power but not committed to the person of Hollande. And, above all, left voters wanted quick action on the economy and not in a neoliberal direction. When things turned out the way they did with the economy and unemployment, plus Hollande’s subpar communication skills and particular governing style (of splitting the difference rather than taking swift, clear decisions, exemplified in the Leonarda affair), it was inevitable that left voters were going to express their discontent (to pollsters and in the municipal and European elections).
@PF FH won by a very slim majority, the outcome was never pro-Hollande it was just anti-Sarkozy. The country was then polarised by ‘mariage pour tous’, an inept, mishandled and low-priority piece of leiglation which has backlashed badly. Hollande’s gauche public performances are a disaster in a country proud of its symbols, history and institutions and now we have ‘SansDentes’, a lamentable and undignified phrase set to stick to him like ‘pauve con’ glued to Sarkozy. The man is toast and he’s dragging his party down the drain with him. Try walking into a bar in any small country village and mentioning “notre president” — then wait for fireworks. MLP and the threat of MLP is a stick voters are using to thrash mainstream politicians with, what if they develop a taste for such flagellation?
I agree. It should be his political epitaph. I’m tempted to try for some pithy rejoinder like “the poor will show Hollande their teeth in 2017,” but I can’t muster the energy. I think Hollande’s fate was sealed long ago.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the servants at the Elysée alerted their colleagues to Hollande’s movements with the phrase “dead president walking,” much as the guards at Angola call out “dead man walking” to announce that a death row inmate in being moved within the prison.
Frenchnews: I agree that the ‘mariage pour tous’ should not have been accorded high priority but it was, after all, a campaign pledge of Hollande’s and no one anticipated the extent of the opposition on the right. And, pour mémoire, the UMP leadership did not participate in the movement. Even Marine LP & Co kept their distance from it. Just about everyone was taken by surprise by the virulence of the opposition and the size of the demos.
As for the ‘SansDents’, Hollande is, IMO, a victim of character assassination on his. As I have asserted elsewhere, I don’t believe for a second that he pronounced these words in the first degree, i.e. in a literal sense. If he did indeed say them, there was certainly a context, or he was being ironic about someone else saying them, or something like that.
Sorry, I know I should be braver, but I just can’t stand the idea of a Sarko bis. The paradox is that I would never leave my country if it was “menacé” (from the inside or the outside), I would stand and fight but if Sarko is elected and returns, I shall pack my gear and leave for Valparaiso or better offer.
Massilian: I entirely sympathize with your sentiments – the mere prospect of a second Sarko presidency fills me with despair – but what you say here reminds me of US Democrats who swore they would leave the US if Nixon were elected in 1968, or Bush reelected in 2004. Republicans said the same thing about Obama in ’08 and ’12. If any actually did make good on their pledge to emigrate, I’d like to know their names…
I think we are seeing the same dark clouds over Europe but because we are using very different frameworks in interpreting their meaning, we necessarily reach very different conclusions. Yours is a thoughtful, careful, data-driven analytical approach. MLP cannot be elected because things aren’t really that bad yet and, besides, the French are much too sensible to vote for her, except as a protest candidate. The dark clouds will somehow dissipate—because they must—and we will somehow find ourselves in the sensible center—again, because there’s no realistic alternative.
It seems to me however, that Europe, and particularly France, has genuinely changed since 2008 in ways that your analysis discounts far too heavily. I think the disastrous response of the elites to the financial crises has awakened some demons that we thought had been laid to rest by the European project. Indeed, I think it’s possible to see what might be the very faint outlines of another gathering storm threatening Europe.
As Paul Krugman and others have been saying, the thing that’s mainly responsible for this gathering storm is Europe’s unprecedented commitment to both the euro and to a destructive austerity that is shrinking its economies and flirting with deflation. It’s true that the results of austerity haven’t yet been as “murderous” in France as elsewhere but, whether it’s the desired result or simply an inevitable consequence of economic mismanagement, austerity and the euro is hollowing out France’s economy and destroying the social welfare state. Even an economy as strong as that of France cannot withstand this battering for much longer.
So, yes, perhaps it might have been hyperbole to say that France is today experiencing murderous austerity. Nevertheless, many others in Europe certainly are and the future doesn’t look promising for France. I suppose it would have been more accurate for me to have said that austerity is murderous in Greece, Spain and England but, for the moment, is only ruinous in France with murderous coming up fast on the rails. But, as George Brassens might say, hang today or hang tomorrow, what difference does it make if you end up hanged anyway?
Which is my main point. I think the mature, levelheaded French can see the writing on the wall. They don’t want to be hanged in the name of austerity. Not today. Not tomorrow. Every defector to the FN who has told his or her story in Marianne, Libé and elsewhere has expressed some variation on this theme and the polls confirm that these fears about the future are what’s been driving the rise of MLP.
And yet, the unwavering commitment to austerity by the UMP, François Bayrou and the PS means that a Frenchman who is fearful about the future has no way to vote against the current policies except by voting for MLP. In other words, MLP’s unpopularity will be irrelevant because the election will not be between parties or candidates along a political spectrum of left and right but rather will represent a simple binary choice between austerity and prosperity with MLP coopting the mantle of prosperity.
Of particular concern for me is that there is no electoral outlet on the left for middle class and working class people to protest against their diminished fortunes or to secure a better life for their children at the ballot box. The people of the left must retake their parties from those who have embraced austerity and rejected the political and economic ideas that brought about an era of peace and prosperity in post-war Europe. That is why I renew my call for new leadership on the left that is committed to offering the people hope for a better future through a new manifesto that will embrace a “socialisme du possible” for today.
I can much more get behind this understanding of the problem. But I would emphasize further that one doesn’t even need a full-blown leftist to offer leadership.
A simple social-democratic center-left politician (garden variety up until they all seemed to enter a defensive cower) who had the courage of his convictions to not abandon Keynesianism and the basics of monetary policy (i.e. nothing works if it’s too tight; it shouldn’t be used to coerce fiscal measures, etc.) would be sufficient.
A last point: I think this new leader would have to be an elite of some sort because it will require intra-European diplomatic coordination, not simply a single country effort.
@ PF,
I agree both about the necessary policies and about the milieu from which such a leader might emerge. What we need are the most conventional Keynesian solutions. The really amazing thing is that the economic policies you’re talking about were considered mainstream just five years ago; just as talk of ‘confidence’ and ‘expansionary austerity’ were considered to be the ravings of fringe Austrian lunatics.
I agree with you about dark clouds and dangerous moments across Europe and your view of the bankers. Indeed I don’t believe the bankers have yet finished with their global economic destruction and when European banks along with euro, collapse, there is likely to be mayhem. (By way of example the recent 10 billion euro collapse of Portugal’s Espirito Santo empire — its second largest bank — is described as one of Europe’s biggest corporate collapses ever!) The French have a longtime hate relationship with bankers going back to John Law the Scottish rogue who as France’s central banker collapsed the currency, wreaked havoc and paved the way for 1789. Might another John Law on a European scale have a similar effect?
Mitch: Three points. First, you have no doubt seen the latest TNS-Sofres baromètre, which shows a generalized disaffection by French voters toward all the political parties, including the FN (a phenomenon I mentioned in my post last week on Valls II). There is no indication that MLP or the FN are rising above the pack or are seen as a credible alternative by a significant number of defecting voters from the major parties.
Secondly, you neglect to consider the most likely response by left and working/lower class voters to the economic crisis and the inability of the government to do anything about it, which is abstention. Rather than cast a protest vote for a populist and/or extreme right-wing party, voters will likely drop out of political participation and civic life altogether, i.e. France will “Americanize” in yet one more way.
Thirdly, on left voters “retak[ing] their parties,” I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. The fact is, the left had a charismatic candidate in Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the last election and a solid gauche de la gauche formation – the Front de Gauche – but they failed. JLM – who had great ambitions to supplant the PS – has indeed declared failure and is taking a break from politics, and with the future of the FdG uncertain. And the leading party of the extrême gauche, the NPA, is electorally non-existent. So before talking about a leftist alternative to the PS, one has to explain the collapse of the leftist alternative such as it has actually existed. And while one is it at, it would be useful to hear the concrete details of that alternative (and which, mind you, needs to be credible, with some relationship to reality and the rapports de force in the French political system, in which the right is structurally larger than the left). When I ask leftists in my entourage – who voted Hollande in ’12 but are now kvetching about him and the PS – specifically what they want, the response is invariably “not this!” They don’t go further. I’m sorry but “not this!” is not a political program, let alone a credible alternative.
Yanis Varoufakis’s “Modest Proposal,” which is ambitious on European-wide investment but cautious on any further institutional integration, is something that any social-democratic, center-left party should be able to get behind as part of the solution at the European level.
And middle-term domestic economic reform is just as conceivable, if not more so, if the citizenry aren’t in a defensive, loss-aversion panic.
PF: Thanks for this, which I read en diagonale. I like Yanis Varoufakis and some of the others cited in the piece. The moment for the PS to adopt such a social-democratic program was in 2011-12 but it unfortunately didn’t, as the voters in the PS primary opted – no doubt unwittingly – to privilege deficit reduction in voting for Hollande over giving absolute priority to economic growth, which was Martine Aubry’s position (and which is why I flipped to Aubry in the 2nd round of the primary, as I explained back then). So many opportunities were missed. E.g. the proposal by Thomas Piketty et al to radically reform the tax code and in a progressive direction, which Hollande did not take up. So this will have to be the basis for a left-wing alternative in 2022 – assuming it’s still relevant by then – as the left is going to be annihilated in the next presidential and legislative elections. One cannot be certain of anything in politics but on this, unfortunately we can.
Arun: yes, very good to bring up that primary campaign moment, which had faded in my memory. In a sense, Aubry’s and Hollande’s respective rhetorical moves and policy inclinations represented two different legacies of Delors’ influence on PS elites. Fragile balancing of a vision of prosperous Social Europe and compétivité/rigueur/Franco-German neoliberal compromise.
Constraints such as 1) Germany’s creditor bargaining power and intransigence, 2) the precarious weakness of the French banking sector (not resolved at all by pre-2012 governments), and 3) the comparable political and policy disarray of other center-left parties in the big eurozone countries (Italy and Spain, above all; Netherlands would probably always side with Germany), have probably always meant that the post-2012 president would face a particularly difficult balancing act. I too would have preferred to see Aubry take up that challenge rather than Hollande. But both are Delorists of a sort.
When you fail and fail again, you should lower your goals and at least achieve something positive. We expect much too much from our french “political elite”. They are unfit for political leadership. Sciences-Po and ENA suck ! I’d say on the average, both right and left, all the would be president in 2017, could just become decent mayors for 50 000 inhabitants cities. Please no more enlightened leaders with a vision ! We can’t seriously handle anything above regional level anymore. And if it doesn’t work, the damage done isn’t as bad. Let’s trash the french 5th republic constitution, let’s forget the french “grandeur”, let’s go the swiss way, let’s go federal. Let’s go bottom up and not top down. Let’s be humble for a change. Blessure d’orgueil n’est pas mortelle.
Massilian: Seeing how federalism works in the US, I wouldn’t recommend it as a model for other countries to emulate. In point of fact, federalism tends to work mainly in countries which have a long tradition of it (Germany, Switzerland) or where national integration arrived late or is incomplete. And one shouldn’t forget that France has decentralized considerably over the past three decades. Some things should definitely be devolved to lower levels of government but not everything (i.e. when it comes to the educational system, I’m a bit of a Jacobin).
[…] Express spectre is unlikely to happen, try this recent piece by Paris-based academic Arun Kapil: Can Marine Le Pen win in ’17? ‘No way’ is his succinct […]