To a limited degree I can agree with what former Dubya Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen says here:
The French vote was not an endorsement of globalism or a vote of confidence in the French political establishment. It was a rejection of Le Pen’s toxic brand of Putinism and anti-Semitism. And the person who should be happiest that Le Pen lost is Trump. She would have been not an ally, but rather, an albatross for the president, because Le Pen was the left wing’s caricature of Trump come to life.
I actually have a number of quibbles with this statement, however. The French presidential election was a lot more complex than a simple referendum on Marine Le Pen. Overall, it was a rejection of France’s establishment, including their two main political parties. It’s true that the public there rejected Le Pen as the alternative to the status quo, but the success of Emmanuel Macron’s campaign wasn’t a simple rejection of Putinism or anti-Semitism. I don’t know how well Le Pen would have allied with a Trump administration, but I think her election would have been welcomed in the White House and interpreted there are further validation that they’re part of a vanguard of an international movement. On the other hand, it could very well be true that Le Pen would have become some kind of albatross for the Trump administration.
It’s just that I am not sure the problem would have been that Le Pen is the left-wing caricature of Trump come to life. It’s not really clear to me how Trump and Le Pen differ in any of the respects that really matter. They seem to be very closely aligned.
Thiessen’s thesis is based on the left-wing caricature being distorted and unfair, primarily because he doesn’t buy that the Trump campaign is in the pocket of Putin or that anti-Semitism is fair charge to make against him. There are many possible theories of what the many connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians might mean, but it seems very premature to brush aside them all as insignificant. And as long someone like Steve Bannon is essentially running the Oval Office, charges of anti-Semitism cannot be dismissed. At a minimum, anti-Semites have taken comfort in how Trump staffed his administration.
Most of all, I don’t think the American public pays a lot of attention to French politics so it’s hard to envision how the outcome of the presidential election there will have an impact on Trump. Given that, I think it’s fairly clear that the administration is disappointed in the outcome there and far from sighing in relief.
I don’t know why you bother arguing against Thiessen. He would have written the exact opposite column if Le Pen had won.
I used to think that Jen Rubin was the biggest tool at the WaPo, but it turned out I was wrong.
Oddly, Jen Rubin has actually been a fairly consistent and cogent opponent not just to Trump and Trumpism, but to what the Republican Congress is doing. BooMan linked to her reporting and opinions on last week’s ACHA vote, and her opposition to that piece is of the type reality-based-universe liberals can sign onto.
It’s kind of weird, frankly. Rubin was one of the most intellectually fraudulent columnists around for years. Perhaps the sheer awfulness of Trump and the Republicans who, reluctantly or not, got on board with him, caused Rubin to become sick of regurgitating right wing lies.
It was good to see someone not on the right win something.
Of more impact here may be a trouncing of Labour given the connection between Sanders and Corbyn.
Not clear to me why Sanders is in that mix. But ok.
Le Pen is smarter than Trump.
But Trump runs the top of the list crime family. Can’t beat that.
True. She’s also better steeped in the issues than the barely-dipped Donald. And that’s despite stumbling on a Euro currency question in the last debate.
While it’s not wise or accurate to over-romanticize the French and their electorate or their msm, there still seems to be a higher barrier for entry over there as to intelligence and general competence as compared to the LCD-is-ok US.
Le Pen was the left wing’s caricature of Trump come to life?
Oh no, it’s too late for that.
The hippies have been right for the past 50 years.
As Driftglass says, “…Conservative hobgoblins…are now being allowed to burnish their resumes as Serious Conservative Thinkers by simply ripping off the core Liberal critique of [their] Conservative movement, sanding off its icky Liberal pedigree, and passing it off as the Cutting Edge of Serious Conservative Thinking.”
BothSidesDoItTM is the BigLie that allows the conservative movement to continue pushing ever rightward, destroying the notion of government as they go so they can sell everything off to their patrons.
header tweet
also
“The left’s caricature of Trump come to life” is an infuriating phrase.
How absurd do conservative public figures have to be, before the right admits to it? I mean, with Reagan and Bush and Bush you could maybe argue that we weren’t seeing them quite clearly; we were distracted by trivia like their being totally incompetent or not being able to talk (and yes, I mean all three of them, in different ways). With Trump you have a person so outlandish that even his staunchest defenders freely admit that he’s unconventional, extreme, and has serious liabilities — which they go on to say that they’re willing to overlook (overlook, not refuse to acknowledge).
But stuff like this, as Michael Corleone put it in another context, “insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.”
What are you talking about? Why would they ever? Trump showed them they can just lie all the time.
There is no peak wingnut.
Cognitive dissonance and projection are the twin pillars of modern US conservatism.
And Strongman Trump is essentially those two pillars, personified, tweeting to his right-wing authoritarian followers that they can go on ignoring objective, observable reality.
Because Strongman Trump is a rightful authority. Which is all that matters to right-wing authoritarians.
There is, and never will be, peak wingnut.
Overall, it was a rejection of France’s establishment, including their two main political parties.
It was? Macron is the establishment personified. He used to be a banker. He used to be part of Hollande’s government, made policy that made Hollande radioactive in fact, and got out before Hollande’s stink spread to him.
You think the French don’t know who or what they’re voting for? Likeliest answer to why Macron won easily is that most are doing ok in France compared to, say, the US or UK.
Macron’s politics will be an interesting experiment because he hasn’t run from who he is. If he fails Le Pen, or whoever replaces her, will be in a stronger position for the next election.
If he fails Le Pen, or whoever replaces her, will be in a stronger position for the next election.
It’s why Mélenchon didn’t endorse Macron. He didn’t want to be saddled with Macron’s stink if things go like last time(Hollande).
You think the French don’t know who or what they’re voting for?
Did you see the first round results?
Likeliest answer to why Macron won easily is that most are doing ok in France compared to, say, the US or UK.
I’m not so sure about that. Unemployment is like 10% or so. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong. It was more a vote against Le Pen then it was for Macron. You can mark “none of the above” even in the second round, apparently, and a lot of people did just that.
Yes.
Hollande had single digit support if he were to run again. That tells you everything you need to know about how well the establishment was liked. Macron was supported by the media as a change candidate.
People voted against Le Pen in the second round. How the upcoming parliament elections goes will be more important than the presidential election to determine the future. Therefore the media will now talk up Macrons support in an effort to give him a majority for five more years of austerity.
It’s difficult to sustain the claim that Macron is “the establishment personified” when he ran outside of the long-established political parties. In fact, he established his own political Party.
We’ll see who runs for parliament under the banner of En Marche, what sort of policies they pursue, and whether they take enough seats to be part of the governing coalition. They’re starting from zero seats in Parliament, so it’ll be a challenge.
Macron is likely to have a difficult time governing the way he wants if he doesn’t work well with Parliament. I don’t believe the French Presidency has as much power as the Presidencies of many other countries.
It has more power than most.
It’s difficult to sustain the claim that Macron is “the establishment personified” when he ran outside of the long-established political parties. In fact, he established his own political Party.
He had to establish a new party because Hollande’s approval ratings were at like 5%. It’s why Hollande didn’t run for another term. He would have gotten wiped out in the first round. Hollande’s stench basically killed the Socialist Party in France. Neither of the two main parties fared well this election.
Agreed, Hollande was polling abysmally, but the Socialists still holds far more overall Parlimentary seats than any other Party. Perhaps this will change in the next election; we shall see.
I hope the European Union leaders who have been trying to enforce austerity measures buy a fucking clue; they’re fomenting these racist nationalist movements. History and the current social climate strongly suggest that if the EU were to unravel we’d be looking at another major war soon enough.