"We have a President who thinks insulting people is a sufficient policy in itself, and a very large part of the population, going well beyond those directly affected by the pensions issue, who feel a personal loathing for him. Only Macron is capable of calming the situation, and he is unable or unwilling to do so. The pot is boiling over."
As always, the only thing that really matters in the end is whether the police and army will hesitate to shoot if ordered to do so. France has spent a great deal of time and effort making sure that those security forces will carry out orders such as these, and if Macron were concerned with their loyalty, he would not be flying off to deliver an ultimatum to Xi. As it is, the people who matter share Macron's undisguised contempt for his fellow citizens. If the price to keep France in the Atlanticist orbit was the wholesale massacre of French citizens, they wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.
Now, what happens in 2027? Either Macron, cheered on by the people who matter, declares a State of Exception (because there is a real possibility that someone unacceptable to the French and European elites will take office), or Macron twats off to Miami or somesuch place and basks in the adulation of the Davos Set (which he can do because his successor is a muppet much like himself).
No matter how it plays out, the French get left holding the bag.
I should have added - all this assumes that the people who matter remain unified. Les Miz and romantic fantasies aside, as long as the elites are united, they remain secure, because they will do whatever it takes to hold onto power. Otherwise, they would not keep their positions for long.
It's when the elites are divided amongst themselves that crack start to appear.
Elites, by definition, will not stay unified. 1789 happened because the king's ministers decided that using extraordinary measures to give an appearance of legitimacy to the king raising taxes/canceling debts was a good idea and the nobles decided that that was a good time to blackmail the king and his ministers. Then things got out of control from their hands in a manner that I don't think they expected. These events took place because the different factions of the elites smelled an opportunity to one up their rivals for power--even if they didn't realize the big picture swirling around them.
Whenever there's a crisis, it's one opportunity to score short term points for the elites, and Macron has plenty of enemies among the elites who will try to take advantage, whether or not they are aware of the big picture or not.
Perhaps I misapprehend, but I get the definite impression that the French and European elites prefer Macron to any likely replacement, and that any deviation from the Atlanticist orientation is anathema.
For every Louis XVI, there's a Duke of Orleans, I think. True, there won't be enough people who would execute Louis XVI for the express purpose of making the Duke the new king, but if the king goes for whatever reason, it's an opportunity for rival elites.
For the revolution, the bourgeois elite started to act, trying forcefully to impose themselves over the aristocratic and clergy, as they where the ones paying. Things got out of hand from there, until the bourgeois plutocracy managed to take power, a power they hold till today. But oligarchies are followed by tyrannies, that is popular strongmen taking on the oligarchs in the name of the people.
I'm amazed at the extent to which leaders seem to forget that the world is watching. It would seem that Macron's problems domestically will undermine his/France's clout on the world stage. Scholz and Sunak aren't doing too well either. Will the declining popularity of these leaders erode popular support for their foreign policies, e.g. U.S. sanctions on Russia, aid to Ukraine, isolating China, and generally slavish obedience to the U.S. It would seem that Europe will continue to fray as long as the sanctions and the war in Ukraine continue, so the trend is not any leader's friend right now. It will keep getting worse, and worse, until something breaks, imho.
The people who matter will cheer. Macron is a leader who gets them, one who doesn't even bother to pretend to hide how little he cares for anyone other than the people who matter.
Similarly, Scholz can sleep soundly, as Germans *like* being slaves. Sunak may be replaced by a blairite muppet, but that's like swapping Tweedledum for Tweedledee.
Very well done Aurelien. I wish I could find anyone doing anything similar about Spanish politics. Now this prompted me to questions.
The first has to do with the recent visit to China, where, as I see it, Macron has been, to no avail, playing gossip services for the US Government. I guess that many, particularly among the Republicans, might be angry about such descent of French diplomacy and if this could have any impact on the Parliamentary equilibriums Macron tries to game.
Second question has to do with the possibility to declare "state of exception". I believe there is another excuse that Macron would likely bring for such a movement, particularly if and when things go sour in Ukraine and the EU. Could ge allege "Russian meddling" for such a decision? Wouls it make any difference if he chooses this or "save France from fascism"?
Thanks, Ignacio. On the first point, this trip was partly (some say mostly) about exports and commercial links. Macron brought a huge train of businessmen with him. Don't forget also that he's the only European leader who is executive Head of State, rather than Prime Minister, and this gives him a certain status in the eyes of the Chinese (and a higher status than the German Chancellor, for example). However imperfectly, he was trying to continue the Fifth Republic's use of this to carve out an independent role and an independent line on major issues. The French wouldn't want a US-brokered settlement over the heads of Europeans, any more than other Europeans would, and the French feel better-placed than any other country to play an independent role.
On the second point, it's hard to say. Macron doesn't have to convince anyone of the reality of the threat. Article 16 enables an exception if "les institutions de la République, l'indépendance de la Nation, l'intégrité de son territoire ou l'exécution de ses engagements internationaux sont menacés d'une manière grave et immédiate et que le fonctionnement régulier des pouvoirs publics constitutionnels est interrompu." ie there's a grave and immediate danger to the institutions of the Republic, the independence of the country or its international engagements are threatened and the normal functioning of government is interrupted. Make of that what you will.
A pity there’s no option for using the guillotine to fix the attitudes of tyrants like Macron or Canada’s Trudeau. I applaud the French people for resisting and swarming Blackstone and their ilk is needed to re-commoditize the world’s economy. Burn down the institutions that oppress us for financial gain whether they are financial or corrupt governmental or more blatantly criminal. GO FRANCE! GO! Maybe the North Americans will follow again.
And how quickly we seem to have forgotten the military push-back to Macron. A public repudiation of the civil power that in any other country would have led to criminal charges, but in France...?
The Macron supporters I know have a shared Euro/Atlanticist identity that they cultivate out of a desire to seem propertied and well off and right thinking and modern. They do this despite the fact that they can’t afford to go on holiday, drive their car anywhere but to work, meet the needs of their family, have people over for dinner etc…. They’re very rah rah Ukraine even while suffering the consequences of the war. Given the superficiality of their support for Europe, NATO, Biden, pension reform and all the rest I would think that Macron’s base of support could vanish very quickly if he were to misstep. Just as they supported the constitutional procedure by which the reform was passed they might support another like it if he were to “go too far.”
My question for the author is to what extent is France in a crisis brought about by denial? What I mean is, we seem to be at war with Russia, there doesn’t seem to be enough rain water for the crops and the rivers and the vineyards, small businesses seem to close all the time and the middle class grows poorer and poorer, and yet the French are meant to sign up for a lottery to buy very expensive tickets for Olympic sporting events held in very chic venues newly restored to their former glory, for example. There would seem to be a lot of potential for people to get even angrier than they already are once the people currently playing make believe get tired of pretending to be part of the elite. I love that the French countryside is stuck in the early 1990s but it would seem that the President is too, by which I mean he isn’t oriented toward solving the problems of this new century.
I think it's denial in the limited sense that Macron is, and always has been utterly removed from the reality you describe, and if anything seems to be retreating further from it, into the "Castle" or the "Palace" as the media describe the Elysée. He seems to genuinely believe that the pensions issue is over, and that, after the report of the Constitutional Council on 14 April, he can move on to other things. The only problems he acknowledges are those of persuading the recalcitrant French to swallow market fundamentalism without protest. I agree his support is "soft" but where would it go? Some to the Greens, perhaps, but not much to LFI.
Contrary to popular belief, educated humans are more prone to cognitive dissonance, because they are better at symbol manipulation, at convincing themselves that "1+1 does not equal 2" at least for certain values of "1" and "2",
EDIT: I should have added (stupid cat!) that Paul Fussell teaches us that the middle class is the least free among us.
The rich live off capital, which is famously indifferent to norms or niceties. The workers live off labor, and nobody cares what a street sweeper does on his own time, as long as he shows up ready to work the next day. The middle class primarily sell their credentials, signaling that "I can be counted upon to toe the line, to jump through hoops, to perform when asked to!".
Sort of like how, n 1984, the Outer Party are less supervised than the proles.
Great. Fascism for Democracy, calling itself anti-Fascism--which seems like just the effort people like Macron would try. (I don't think things would fall apart quite yet, but who knows....)
"We have a President who thinks insulting people is a sufficient policy in itself, and a very large part of the population, going well beyond those directly affected by the pensions issue, who feel a personal loathing for him. Only Macron is capable of calming the situation, and he is unable or unwilling to do so. The pot is boiling over."
As always, the only thing that really matters in the end is whether the police and army will hesitate to shoot if ordered to do so. France has spent a great deal of time and effort making sure that those security forces will carry out orders such as these, and if Macron were concerned with their loyalty, he would not be flying off to deliver an ultimatum to Xi. As it is, the people who matter share Macron's undisguised contempt for his fellow citizens. If the price to keep France in the Atlanticist orbit was the wholesale massacre of French citizens, they wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.
Now, what happens in 2027? Either Macron, cheered on by the people who matter, declares a State of Exception (because there is a real possibility that someone unacceptable to the French and European elites will take office), or Macron twats off to Miami or somesuch place and basks in the adulation of the Davos Set (which he can do because his successor is a muppet much like himself).
No matter how it plays out, the French get left holding the bag.
I should have added - all this assumes that the people who matter remain unified. Les Miz and romantic fantasies aside, as long as the elites are united, they remain secure, because they will do whatever it takes to hold onto power. Otherwise, they would not keep their positions for long.
It's when the elites are divided amongst themselves that crack start to appear.
Silly cat!
Elites, by definition, will not stay unified. 1789 happened because the king's ministers decided that using extraordinary measures to give an appearance of legitimacy to the king raising taxes/canceling debts was a good idea and the nobles decided that that was a good time to blackmail the king and his ministers. Then things got out of control from their hands in a manner that I don't think they expected. These events took place because the different factions of the elites smelled an opportunity to one up their rivals for power--even if they didn't realize the big picture swirling around them.
Whenever there's a crisis, it's one opportunity to score short term points for the elites, and Macron has plenty of enemies among the elites who will try to take advantage, whether or not they are aware of the big picture or not.
Perhaps I misapprehend, but I get the definite impression that the French and European elites prefer Macron to any likely replacement, and that any deviation from the Atlanticist orientation is anathema.
Correct me if I am wrong.
For every Louis XVI, there's a Duke of Orleans, I think. True, there won't be enough people who would execute Louis XVI for the express purpose of making the Duke the new king, but if the king goes for whatever reason, it's an opportunity for rival elites.
True enough, but unlike France in 1789, France in 2023 (or 2027) is not sovereign.
For the revolution, the bourgeois elite started to act, trying forcefully to impose themselves over the aristocratic and clergy, as they where the ones paying. Things got out of hand from there, until the bourgeois plutocracy managed to take power, a power they hold till today. But oligarchies are followed by tyrannies, that is popular strongmen taking on the oligarchs in the name of the people.
And that is the next stage for the west
I'm amazed at the extent to which leaders seem to forget that the world is watching. It would seem that Macron's problems domestically will undermine his/France's clout on the world stage. Scholz and Sunak aren't doing too well either. Will the declining popularity of these leaders erode popular support for their foreign policies, e.g. U.S. sanctions on Russia, aid to Ukraine, isolating China, and generally slavish obedience to the U.S. It would seem that Europe will continue to fray as long as the sanctions and the war in Ukraine continue, so the trend is not any leader's friend right now. It will keep getting worse, and worse, until something breaks, imho.
The people who matter will cheer. Macron is a leader who gets them, one who doesn't even bother to pretend to hide how little he cares for anyone other than the people who matter.
Similarly, Scholz can sleep soundly, as Germans *like* being slaves. Sunak may be replaced by a blairite muppet, but that's like swapping Tweedledum for Tweedledee.
Very well done Aurelien. I wish I could find anyone doing anything similar about Spanish politics. Now this prompted me to questions.
The first has to do with the recent visit to China, where, as I see it, Macron has been, to no avail, playing gossip services for the US Government. I guess that many, particularly among the Republicans, might be angry about such descent of French diplomacy and if this could have any impact on the Parliamentary equilibriums Macron tries to game.
Second question has to do with the possibility to declare "state of exception". I believe there is another excuse that Macron would likely bring for such a movement, particularly if and when things go sour in Ukraine and the EU. Could ge allege "Russian meddling" for such a decision? Wouls it make any difference if he chooses this or "save France from fascism"?
Thanks, Ignacio. On the first point, this trip was partly (some say mostly) about exports and commercial links. Macron brought a huge train of businessmen with him. Don't forget also that he's the only European leader who is executive Head of State, rather than Prime Minister, and this gives him a certain status in the eyes of the Chinese (and a higher status than the German Chancellor, for example). However imperfectly, he was trying to continue the Fifth Republic's use of this to carve out an independent role and an independent line on major issues. The French wouldn't want a US-brokered settlement over the heads of Europeans, any more than other Europeans would, and the French feel better-placed than any other country to play an independent role.
On the second point, it's hard to say. Macron doesn't have to convince anyone of the reality of the threat. Article 16 enables an exception if "les institutions de la République, l'indépendance de la Nation, l'intégrité de son territoire ou l'exécution de ses engagements internationaux sont menacés d'une manière grave et immédiate et que le fonctionnement régulier des pouvoirs publics constitutionnels est interrompu." ie there's a grave and immediate danger to the institutions of the Republic, the independence of the country or its international engagements are threatened and the normal functioning of government is interrupted. Make of that what you will.
A pity there’s no option for using the guillotine to fix the attitudes of tyrants like Macron or Canada’s Trudeau. I applaud the French people for resisting and swarming Blackstone and their ilk is needed to re-commoditize the world’s economy. Burn down the institutions that oppress us for financial gain whether they are financial or corrupt governmental or more blatantly criminal. GO FRANCE! GO! Maybe the North Americans will follow again.
And how quickly we seem to have forgotten the military push-back to Macron. A public repudiation of the civil power that in any other country would have led to criminal charges, but in France...?
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210510-french-government-furious-over-new-military-letter-warning-macron-of-survival-of-france
The Macron supporters I know have a shared Euro/Atlanticist identity that they cultivate out of a desire to seem propertied and well off and right thinking and modern. They do this despite the fact that they can’t afford to go on holiday, drive their car anywhere but to work, meet the needs of their family, have people over for dinner etc…. They’re very rah rah Ukraine even while suffering the consequences of the war. Given the superficiality of their support for Europe, NATO, Biden, pension reform and all the rest I would think that Macron’s base of support could vanish very quickly if he were to misstep. Just as they supported the constitutional procedure by which the reform was passed they might support another like it if he were to “go too far.”
My question for the author is to what extent is France in a crisis brought about by denial? What I mean is, we seem to be at war with Russia, there doesn’t seem to be enough rain water for the crops and the rivers and the vineyards, small businesses seem to close all the time and the middle class grows poorer and poorer, and yet the French are meant to sign up for a lottery to buy very expensive tickets for Olympic sporting events held in very chic venues newly restored to their former glory, for example. There would seem to be a lot of potential for people to get even angrier than they already are once the people currently playing make believe get tired of pretending to be part of the elite. I love that the French countryside is stuck in the early 1990s but it would seem that the President is too, by which I mean he isn’t oriented toward solving the problems of this new century.
I think it's denial in the limited sense that Macron is, and always has been utterly removed from the reality you describe, and if anything seems to be retreating further from it, into the "Castle" or the "Palace" as the media describe the Elysée. He seems to genuinely believe that the pensions issue is over, and that, after the report of the Constitutional Council on 14 April, he can move on to other things. The only problems he acknowledges are those of persuading the recalcitrant French to swallow market fundamentalism without protest. I agree his support is "soft" but where would it go? Some to the Greens, perhaps, but not much to LFI.
Contrary to popular belief, educated humans are more prone to cognitive dissonance, because they are better at symbol manipulation, at convincing themselves that "1+1 does not equal 2" at least for certain values of "1" and "2",
EDIT: I should have added (stupid cat!) that Paul Fussell teaches us that the middle class is the least free among us.
The rich live off capital, which is famously indifferent to norms or niceties. The workers live off labor, and nobody cares what a street sweeper does on his own time, as long as he shows up ready to work the next day. The middle class primarily sell their credentials, signaling that "I can be counted upon to toe the line, to jump through hoops, to perform when asked to!".
Sort of like how, n 1984, the Outer Party are less supervised than the proles.
Well summed up...
Great. Fascism for Democracy, calling itself anti-Fascism--which seems like just the effort people like Macron would try. (I don't think things would fall apart quite yet, but who knows....)