French elections 2017: completing the hat-trick?

just now reading that the massive abstention rate means that LREM have gotten fewer actual votes than PS in 2012 or the UMP in 2007

Yes, but since they also got a lower percentage of the votes, it would have been really weird otherwise...

Seriously, what is the long-term plan of Melenchon, I don't get this at all.

Visiting gf's family in France, what I came away with most is that this election was quite traumatic for a lot of people - a lotta families/friendships estranged, and not just in situations where someone voted Le Pen.

I hadn't thought this election had been on that Trump/brexit scale for France. I guess maybe this is the default for elections now?

yeah, lotsa people just cant accept anymore that voting in an election usually entails making compromises and settling on a common denominator (ie. lots of whining coming from the left). Also, this electoral period was unusually long for France, with each camp organising primaries for the first time. So a general ras-le-bol is understandable.

People have disagreed on whether it's better to vote for a common denominator centrist or a more clearly outright leftist for as long as I've been alive, the fact that there is no consensus on this is one of the founding characteristics of European politics imo (else we'd be in a two party system like the Americans).

What's different imo is the emotional investment placed on who your friends/family/neighbours are voting for, which I don't recall being nearly as intense before. Predictably enough centrists and leftists I spoke to both placed the blame for this on "whining", "bullying", "purity tests" from the other side.

well the fact that political opinions may trigger intense feelings towards friends/family/neighbour is nothing new, at least in France, where political color defines the individual to a large extent in the eye of others. What may be new in today's french climate is the fact that affiliations are shifting and that lifelong friends may now surprise you in their voting preferences (whereas before you knew very well who always voted what). Hence, intense feelings of betrayal amongst many friends/families

As to the whining I referred to in my post , I rather meant that the narcissism of small differences has now made a lot of people way more uncompromising than before. Socialist card members not voting for Macron against Le Pen due to some "ultraliberal" paranoia (whereas not so long ago the idea of having a centrist supporting progressive values in charge in 2017 would have been a pipe dream) . Melenchon's goons boycotting Macron's speech to Congress because of some perceived autocratic tendencies. I don't know, it just seems a lot of people these days won't play the democratic game if they're not winning.

Point taken re: shifting allegiances.

Macron's decision to give a speech to congress took even the Macron-supporting acquaintances I have by surprise! Certainly didn't feel like consternation over that was limited to the Left/Mélonchon.

Socialist card members not voting for Macron against Le Pen due to some "ultraliberal" paranoia (whereas not so long ago the idea of having a centrist supporting progressive values in charge in 2017 would have been a pipe dream) .

Yeah well I don't think having a president who wants to undo workers' rights some more was ever a pipe dream to anyone with leftist ideals, but what do I know.

see also: making state of emergency permanent by merging it with common law, and then pretending to want to get rid of state of emergency. Under Hollande these laws were used for preventing leftists and environment defenders from protesting, and there is no reason to think this won't happen again with Macron. A fucking pipe dream.

Macron says Africa's problems are "civilizational" and blames women with "7 or 8" kids. A repugnant speech.

pic.twitter.com/4BqwDb7fqE

— joe prince (@joeprince___) July 10, 2017

Can't wait to see how centrist hacks deal with this one.

either ignore or somehow try and justify it. should be funny

A french politician being racist towards Africa would be the least surprising thing ever, but there's a pretty blatant cut in the middle of that video, so I wager I'll hold off on my contempt until I get the whole thing.

Giving him a chance huh?

Here is the English translation of Macron's remarks. he tried to numb the clear racism of his comments with policy wonk jargon. pic.twitter.com/jZk5hpg9MC

— joe prince (@joeprince___) July 10, 2017

I'd hold off on shitting on Trump if I saw a video of him that was so blatantly pilfered with. Give it a minute, the whole speech should be out soon, then we can rip him to shreds.

Here's a fuller one, allegedly. (And he was responding to a reporter from the Ivory Coast?)

If this translation (h/t @jeffjmason) is right, Macron doesn't seem to be saying anything horribly controversial?https://t.co/VJl7p0Ts8v pic.twitter.com/SF71eBSOXr

— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) July 10, 2017

You are a considerate guy, Frederik xp

lol /r/neoliberal ?!?!

But of course!

See, already is pretty clear he isn't blaming the women of anything. So... Grain of salt. Lots of time to rip him to shreds.

LOL sure he isn't.

Arguing with xyzzz is exactly like arguing with the most ardent trumpkin. Your facts are wrong. Yet you continue unabashed.. You're a disgrace to the left, good sir.

"Policy wonk jargon"

Look Fred here is one of the defenders, don't worry yourself too much:

Ok, fuck it. I'm going to half-defend Macron.

— siddhartha mitter (@siddhmi) July 10, 2017

i watched the video and yes, the reporter asking the question is from a cote d'ivoire newspaper and the question references the marshall plan and asks what will be done by the G20 to save africa, effectively. "sauver l'afrique"

this is not a direct translation but basically, Macron's answer starts by saying that for many years there have been promises of a marshall plan for africa and if it were that simple you wouldn't have asked the question.. and he contrasts the marshall plan as a material reconstruction of countries that had essential stability and defined borders, versus the much deeper 'civilizational' problems of africa (!) --> failed states, transitions to democracy, demographic challenges. also trafficking - of arms, drugs, humans, goods - and islamist terrorism. all these issues mixed together, and on the other hand also some countries that are succeeding greatly and show africa is a land of opportunity. and then he goes into roles of private sector, world bank, and government in addressing these problems and the role of partnerships with african organizations.

now i admit french is not my first language and i didn't go to sciences-po but, overall, it feels to me to be arrogant, paternalistic, condescending and offensive.

Who knew!

I doubt I have the time/energy to respond if this goes wild but as a resident of France for the last three years in largely African neighborhoods, where my kids' friends are largely of African descent...I find a lot to agree with in what Macron says.

like, if the question is "how to help Africa?" what kind of answer wouldn't be paternalistic? this thread is too compressed for me to understand what the "good" view is supposed to be.

he is right that dumping billions on african countries will solve nothing.

but perhaps if some CAC40 companies could stop ripping off these countries over and over again it would be a good start.

note that there are a lot of posts in this thread I can't see thanks to the magic of technology and I obv want to dissociate myself with all of those

xp yes companies ripping off African nations + world bank fuckery are horrible and continue to set Africa back. but is the "good" view that if those were ended (and climate change were to end suddenly) then Africa would thrive within 30 years? (also I gather the context here is mostly sub-saharan Africa)

the headlines here in Japan today say that Macron wants a big tax break for the rich, haven't yet read french news to see what that's about

i think that it would help but only be part of a complex solution to a very complex problem. now if that is a paternalistic arrogant and condescending view i have no idea, nor do i know what is the 'good' view.

I agree with that. I'm trying to figure out what's so horrible about Macron's view. evidently talking about African "civilization"? is the thought that you can't critique the values of another group of people because you have no perspective from which to ground such a critique; to suppose there are such perspectives is racist?

one thing i'm certain of: the issues concerning europe when it comes to human rights from 1910-1945 could also be called 'civilizational'. and they got a pretty bonus package for it (some of which was used to extend colonial power in algeria for example).

and there are still "civilizational" problems in France. Macron called French Algerian policy through independence a war crime, and the consequence of that policy still play out today in the segregation endemic to French life (I have academic friends with provincial positions who try to avoid Paris for just this reason. )

they avoid paris because the segregation is so depressing? it's depressing in regional cities too tho ime

also Euler, African neighborhoods in Paris don't really have anything to do with what Macron was talking about right? (i.e. actual Africa?) Does your three years of experience in these neighborhoods equip you to agree or disagree w/Macron's assessment of what ails sub-saharan Africa and what the West's response should be? (i mean, maybe it does! I just don't quite see how)

no they avoid Paris because they don't like mixing with Africans

I raise my experience in these neighborhoods because it means that most of my non-work interactions are with African immigrants to France, which gives me some idea of what contemporary life is like in e.g. the DRC, Côte d'Ivoire, and Mali.

yes companies ripping off African nations + world bank fuckery are horrible and continue to set Africa back. but is the "good" view that if those were ended (and climate change were to end suddenly) then Africa would thrive within 30 years?

I don't think these are the only factors but I do think that a Western leader who fails to take them into account is gonna sound pretty culturally chauvinistic

use of 'civilization' in this context is at best deeply dubious and historically deaf. are demographics civilizational? what does that mean? given that they vary so much over the continent how does looking at this in terms of civilization help?

Man, fuck that original tweet, it wasn't even a speech but an answer to a question. Why the dishonesty, what do people think we will gain by it?

That said, the real answer is of course still absolute bullshit. It's as if someone asked an American politician about reparations, and the politician mentioned all the problems that kept down African-Americans, but didn't mention slavery, redlining, etc. It could perhaps be done without being overtly racist, but it would always be privileged bullshit. Europe has so far to go to get a grip on the crimes of colonialism. I mean, 'failed states', his country just fucked up Libya a few years back and couldn't figure out how to put it back together.

"Macron is actually an NRx guy" seems to have become an alt-right meme

pic.twitter.com/fN66OiV7qL

— Right wing takes (@ViewsFromtheRW) July 11, 2017

tax break for the rich, saying "no we can't have a marshal plan for africa as they have "civilizational issues", taking on the unions, nostalgia for monarchy, looking to change the political system so it's more presidential and parliament's role is more advisory.

and here i was thinking that trudeau was the nadir of the handsome centrist saviour of the free world

Nowhere I have seen Macron discuss a smaller role for the legislative branch, actually he addressed the opposite at his 'state of l'union' speech.

I don't know the English terms for that but he does want to allow "commissions" (committees?) to be able to vote the laws in place of the Parliament.

Those committees already exists and are made of members of the Parliament, a law will generally be seen and worked twice by legislative branch and the executive branch can oppose the amendment made by those laws. If I understand correctly, Macron wants to speed up the process (only examined once by each branch) and to not allow the executive to oppose amendments.

That does mean a law can be voted without a public debate and vote at the Parliament then, right? At leat that's what I understand.

I posted that defence but on reflection can't even agree its a minor thing; its not offensive, but what you'd expect from that man, his class and his politics. The '7/8 kids' has eugenicist overtones (Africa is under-populated if anything).

'Respectable' leftists like Fred want to keep quiet or not raise a fuss - not happening, every dumb remark to be accounted for and pushed back, every inch of the way.