This post began as a Facebook exchange between me and my friend Claire Berlinski over Emmanuel Macron’s 2 hour 38 minute BFM-Mediapart-RMC interview Sunday night—excellently analyzed by Arthur Goldhammer here—that I’m shifting to AWAV. Claire, who caught snippets of the interview on RMC—I watched pretty much the whole thing on BFM—heard from her father—who lives in Paris, as does she—that the interviewers, Jean-Jacques Bourdin and Edwy Plenel, had behaved rudely toward President Macron. After an exchange on this, she wrote
I didn’t watch, but my guess would be that they felt comfortable being mouthy with him *not* because all decency and respect for the office of the presidency has broken down and we’re turning and turning in the widening gyre, but simply because Macron is so young. True, “They wouldn’t have dared to speak like that to CDG or VGE or my God even Hollande,” as my appalled father said, but one look at photos of all France’s postwar presidents, side-by-side, suggests why. It just isn’t instinctive to look at someone young enough to be your kid (as opposed to old enough to be your father) and think, “That’s an authority figure, you must show him deference.”
That Macron’s managed to become president of a country like France — where so much unconscious association is made between the presidency and the monarchy; where so much respect is naturally afforded to a certain kind of formal, older man of culture and good breeding—shows that even though Macron’s a centrist politically, and obviously an intelligent and cultured kid, the French were in a truly revolutionary mood when they put him in office. As indeed they were, given that they pretty much destroyed the ancien régime at the same time.
In some ways, if American voters said, en masse, “We’re going to show the establishment that we have so little respect for them that we’d literally rather give Bozo the Clown the suitcase than reward one of them,” the French did something psychologically very similar — although it seems much less radical to *our* minds, first because we’re Americans, so we’re more used to having younger presidents in office, and now, even religious and racial minorities; second, because Macron is so much more respectable, politically, and stable, emotionally, that we don’t see him as in any way a Trump analogue.
But I suspect, for France, putting what looks to them like a *child* in that office was a similar act of contempt and rebellion. (Although it’s a rebellion much more likely, in the end, to get them what they want: a better country to live in, with more opportunity, a higher standard of living, and more global power. Our rebellion is obviously going to achieve none of those things; quite to the contrary.)
The other thing that would have usually made him totally unelectable, but this time made him electable *precisely* because voters wanted to say, “And screw you all” to the establishment, was Brigitte. “So, these assholes all think they’re entitled to screw beautiful young mistresses while they screw the country, too? To hell with them all. Let’s replace them with a guy who barely looks old enough to shave — and who sure won’t be using our votes — or our taxpayer money — to bang Carla Bruni or Julie Gayet in the Elysée Palace, because that woman would kill him, literally.” I think that was a much bigger act of defiance, of “épater le bourgeois,” than generally appreciated.
My response to Claire:
I think you’re over-analyzing here. First, on the interviewers Bourdin and Plenel being “mouthy” with Macron and behaving rudely, I don’t think his relative youth was a factor. That’s simply the interviewing style of the two journalists in question, which is precisely why Macron specifically selected them for the event. He knew what he was getting into. He was eager to joust. If he had wanted to be treated with kid gloves and lobbed softball questions, he could have chosen any number of high profile TV news personalities known for their deference to the powerful, e.g. David Pujadas or Anne-Sophie Lapix (who interviewed François Hollande last Tuesday on France 2). And if you caught Macron’s TF1 interview last Thursday with Jean-Pierre Pernaut, you won’t have noted any mouthiness.
N.B. On the president of the republic deciding who is going to interview him on national television, in no other advanced democracy would such a thing happen. In the Western world, only in France does the president/prime minister select the journalists for such an interview. In this respect—as in almost all others—Macron has not broken with the practice of his predecessors.
On Macron’s youth—having turned 40 last December—everyone knows it, of course, but it actually hasn’t been an issue or subject of public or media discussion. And it’s not as if France hasn’t had relatively youthful presidents and PMs in recent times (e.g. Giscard d’Estaing, Laurent Fabius). Moreover, while Macron may be youthful in both age and looks, he has impeccably, almost effortlessly, slid into the role as president of France’s monarchical republic. Not even his fiercest critics would deny that he has taken on the stature, that it fits him like a glove—and far more so than his two predecessors, Sarkozy and Hollande, whose personal behavior and style (for different reasons) debased the presidency in the eyes of so many. Macron acts like a president of the republic. And, importantly, he is exceptionally bright, well-spoken, and cultivated, and with an intellectual culture—taken very seriously here, by elites and masses alike—that is head and shoulders above that of his two predecessors. As an énarque—and inspecteur de finance to boot—one would hardly expect less. He moved into the Élysée palace last May knowing exactly what to do and with a intimate knowledge of how the French state works and who is who. So on the level of form, he cuts the figure. And, to repeat, everyone knows it. So his age is simply not an issue.
As for the French people having been in a “truly revolutionary mood” in electing Macron, well, I would put it differently. The French electorate was indeed in an ornery state last year, but which was expressed not by supporting Macron’s unlikely candidacy but in giving 21.3% of the 1st round vote to Marine Le Pen and—of equal importance—an amazing 19.6% to Jean-Luc Mélenchon. If one adds the lesser candidates on the extremes, the total vote garnered by populist/extremist/anti-system candidates in the presidential 1st round was 49.6%. That is to say, fully half of the French electorate—and the turnout, at 78%, was high—cast a “fuck you” vote last April. And none of that went to Emmanuel Macron, who so utterly epitomized the “establishment,” even though he was indeed an insurgent candidate. The state of mind of the French electorate was, ergo, not so different from that of other European polities witnessing a populist surge. What was different in France was the configuration of the party and, above all, electoral systems, the latter of which could have yielded a catastrophic result but thankfully did not.
In point of fact, Macron’s victory—and I’ve written this before—was the product of a perfect storm, or of the stars perfectly aligning (choose your metaphor). It took a crazy series of serendipitous happenings over a three month period—from late November 2016 to February 2017—for Macron to be transformed from a candidate no one took seriously into a veritable homme providentiel. To recap: 1. There was the primary of the right and center in late November ’16, that Alain Juppé—the incarnation of moderate conservatism—was supposed to win handily, thus rendering him the prohibitive favorite to win the presidency the following May. But in a coup de théâtre—that no one saw coming until the very closing stretch—he was eliminated by the more right-wing François Fillon, who then became the favorite, though whose victory left a gaping hole on the center-right of the political spectrum. 2. On December 1st, François Hollande announced that he would not seek reelection. Had he done so, he and Macron would have battled for the same voters. Whatever the outcome of their mano a mano, it is unlikely that either would have made it to the 2nd round. 3. Le Canard Enchaîné, in its January 25th issue, broke the “Penelope Gate” story, which mired Fillon in inextricable scandal, all but wrecked his candidacy, and with center-right voters looking for an alternative. 4. The Socialist Party, largely discredited after five years of failure in power and bitterly divided, held its primary in late January, with the leftist Benoît Hamon pummeling the centrist (and much loathed on the left) Manuel Valls. Valls’s elimination opened more space in the center and center-left, with his voters—who either despised Hamon or deemed that he had no chance of making it to the 2nd round—largely defecting to Macron. 5. On February 22nd, the centrist, perennial presidential candidate François Bayrou announced that he wouldn’t be running a fourth time and proposed an alliance with Macron.
The upshot: A wide space on the political spectrum, from center-left to center-right, was freed up by the five above-mentioned serendipitous happenings, to be occupied by Macron alone. And with the collapse of Hamon’s base—with leftist PS voters defecting to Mélenchon and more centrist ones to Macron—this made it so that Macron was the only acceptable 2nd round candidate to voters not on the hard left or hard/extreme right. His brand of social liberalism was a breath of fresh air to many of his voters but it is clear that a sizable portion of them supported him mainly to prevent a Le Pen-Fillon 2nd round. And his 2nd round vote was, of course, largely anti-Le Pen. As for Macron’s bilan after a year in office, I’ll address that in due course.
I agree with AWAV, Claire is overanalyzing. In some ways, I compare Macron’s rise to the presidency with how Barack Obama made it to the Senate in ’04, an incredible string of lucky breaks, none of his own doing (also a “perfect storm”), which put him in a position to seek the presidency in ‘08.
But there’s another, less comfortable comparison to be made. Internally, within France, many (my dear French wife included) are beginning to see him as more Margaret Thatcher than Tony Blair, intent upon breaking the unions and unraveling the social welfare state.
Outside France, at least in the US, it’s an almost entirely different Macron: he got off to a great start because he was not only not Marine Le Pen, he beat her 2-1; after Brexit and Trump in ‘16, that was huge reassurance to the outside world. His great external press continues: today’s NYT has an article (here) on how he has positioned himself as the spokesperson for liberal democracy in Europe, the anti-Orbán, the anti-populist, the anti-illiberal democracy.
This is all to his credit, but is unlikely to earn him much additional credit within France. And as he cozies up to the guy in our WH, I’m sure he’s thinking, hey, I’m the guy who can persuade that Bozo not to back out of the Iran accord. For now, my reaction: good luck with that.
Yesterday I heard a British journalist at the IMF summit in DC ask Bruno Le Maire “is this Macron’s Maggie moment? Is he going to break the unions?”
The left has soured on Macron but the PS is MIA sow for those who can’t abide by Mélenchon’s grandstanding, there aren’t many ways to express dissatisfaction. If the PS doesn’t articulate a project based on its voters’ values (something novel and adapted to the 21st century, not their 70s plan, not Macron lite), a new group will step in.
BTW I liked the interview. It was a bit rough around the edges but cannot stand those obsequious interviews anymore.
Finally, joke: imagine DT actively deciding on an interview with Rachel Maddow ;-). Yeah – that shows you how important that interview was, in seeking the challenge and in responding to it. I’d like that much better, every year, than re new years wishes.
Entirely agree with you, Thomas, including on the comparison with Obama’s first Senate race.
I fully agree with your view. Macron wasn’t young, it was the two journalists that appeared worn out and déjà vu. Bourdin, the old populist. Light bullying being his trademark and source of business. “I speak to them as any truck driver would Au Bar des Sports de Dunkerque, ’cause I’m a tough mother, and I ask all the mean question they fear. I wear no tie, I don’t cut my hair, I shave every odd day and I call them by their name not by their title, ’cause we are all equal, god damn it, etc. (Karl Zero was bolder when he used the familiar form of tutoiement with the ministers he interviewed). Bourdin = Demagoguery bullshit. The political equivalent of Les Grandes Gueules on RTL, for the same audience.
Good old Edwy Plenel all shiny black raven hair and his constant unpleasant disrespectful smile, the leftist ideologue, Plenel never really asks questions, he wants to expose his point of view and reveal lies. He doesn’t listen to answers, he just sneers.
Macron knew all that. Choose all that. Used all that. He just couldn’t lose. Of course he appeared self contained, educated, brilliant, knowing his dossiers and figures without hesitation, of course he appeared fearless (fear of what ?), of course he showed some grandeur since the pitiful duet decided to bark from below the table. It was a useless show as rightly pointed Yves Thréard. We didn’t learn anything we didn’t know, I mean for those who instead of Taxi on TF1 preferred to watch this low suspense 2h30 long French political spaghetti western (Le bon, la brute et le truand 2) with Bourdin as Eli Wallach and Plenel as Lee van Cleef). Macron keeps the gold.
It’s too bad Macron didn’t do another 2½-hour interview just with the Mediapart crowd, as he did before the 1st round last year. Now *that* would have been interesting.
I would have to disagree with this statement:
“N.B. On the president of the republic deciding who is going to interview him on national television, in no other advanced democracy would such a thing happen. In the Western world, only in France does the president/prime minister select the journalists for such an interview.”
One need look no further than the Trump/Fox nexus to disprove the proposition, but even outside of that cesspit, US presidents for years have given exclusive interviews to journalists of their choosing. Plus, in the US it is common practice (though unremarked on, generally) for the journalists in such interview to submit the questions to the President – or the cabinet secretary, or other official – in advance, with the ground rules for the interview being that the interviewer cannot ask questions outside of those that have been pre-approved. This is one reason there are rarely follow up questions when our politicos spew b.s. Which is why it is also amusing when one of our politicians gets interviewed by, say, the BBC, and find themselves challenged when they try to spout the inanities they can get away with when interviewed by US media.
Of course, perhaps it is an open question whether the US qualifies as an “advanced democracy”, in which case your statement stands. . .
DHM: The Trump/Fox News comparison did occur to me, though I don’t think what one has always had in France is quite the same. It would be as if Obama or any of his predecessors announced that he would be interviewed on prime time on one of the big three networks, and then told the network in question which of its journalists would conduct the interview. That has never happened in the US to my knowledge.