A more conciliatory piece than might be expected from the HuffPo. Does liberalism need to be made safe? How similar is classical liberalism to contemporary progressive liberalism? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/macron-french-election-liberalism_us_590ced7fe4b0e7021e97dd77 Bill Emmott, Contributor Chairman, The Wake Up Foundation Macron’s Victory Does Not Mean Liberalism Is Safe The West isn’t in the clear — elections aren’t everything. 05/08/2017 10:20 am ET POOL NEW / REUTERS It would be wrong to say the West’s fight is over, even in France, with Emmanuel Macron’s win. OXFORD, England — In the wake of the rise of populist nationalism across Europe and the United States, it would be tempting to say that the fate of the West and the future of liberalism were in the hands of French voters. By choosing decisively in Sunday’s elections to send the centrist reformer Emmanuel Macron rather than the far-right Marine Le Pen to the presidential Elysee Palace in the second round runoff, the French avoided a spiral of destruction of the values and institutions on which the prosperity of Europe, the U.S., Japan and other liberal democracies has been based for more than half a century. The West, on this argument, has been saved. But while true in parts, such a statement would be too simple. The French vote was important but ultimately not decisive. And it would be wrong to say the fight is over, even in France, let alone the rest of the West. This battle of ideas is going to run and run. Elections count, but they do not bring the battle to a close. Although it may feel like it at times, this battle is not a sporting contest. Candidates like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton pitted against each other in the U.S., Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron in France, Geert Wilders and Mark Rutte in the Netherlands and Matteo Renzi and whichever proxy the comedian and political activist Beppe Grillo chooses in Italy, are not akin to key players that determine the league champion. The issues that lie behind populism in the West are not going to go away when the current election season is over. Populist nationalists such as Le Pen are responding to genuine, legitimate grievances. To understand why, we need to reflect upon why an outsider to politics is now in the White House and why a far-right candidate such as Le Pen still won around 34 percent of the second-round vote on Sunday, where her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, had had to make do with just 18 percent when he, too, competed unsuccessfully in the runoff for the French presidency in 2002. The reality is that voters in Europe and the United States are angry and disillusioned ― with good reason. Populist nationalists such as Trump and Le Pen are responding to genuine, legitimate grievances. “The system,” as both Trump and former U.S. presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) claimed, has been at best dysfunctional, at worst rigged. In France, after all, unemployment remained at close to 10 percent or more throughout much of the five-year presidency of the socialist François Hollande that began in 2012, despite his repeated promises it would fall. It is a similar, but worse, story across the border in Italy. Italy will be the next country tested by this liberalism challenge — and Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement is center stage. Italy will be the next country to witness the struggle between liberal and populist ideals across Europe. After the period between 2008 and 2013 proved to be the worst economic slump in the country’s modern history, neither the economy nor household incomes have shown more than minuscule, undetectable growth during the nearly three-year premiership of their last leader, Matteo Renzi. Renzi, who at 39 (the same age as Macron) became Italy’s youngest prime minister since its unification in 1861, took power in 2014 on reformist promises but resigned ignominiously last December with a crushing defeat in a referendum over his proposals to change the constitution. No wonder Grillo’s insurgent Five Star Movement is now leading the opinion polls, ahead of general elections that are slated to take place by next spring at the latest. Five Star appeals to a wide cross-section of the Italian electorate, young and old, college-educated or high-school graduates, professional or working class. Its core policy proposals are for a referendum on Italy’s membership of the European Union’s euro single currency and ― the most popular by far ― a vast anti-corruption drive. Its most powerful slogan is just one word: “Onesta” or ”Honesty.” Like Trump, Five Star claims to be focused on “draining the swamp.” Unlike the U.S. president though, it is likely that those goals will actually be attempted by whichever prime ministerial candidate that wealthy political activist Grillo decides to put forward. The reason why Grillo will not himself be a candidate for election is that thanks to a long ago car crash indictment, he has excluded himself under his own rule that no one with a criminal conviction can run for office on Five Star’s ticket. America is clearly not as open, equal or well prepared as it needs to be. And let us not forget the reality in America. President Trump’s inauguration speech may have been hyperbolic in its description of “carnage” in the U.S., but he wasn’t wholly off the mark. Never mind that the U.S. economy has, in simple GDP terms, recovered better from 2008 than most European economies. Any society in which something like 10 million prime working-age men have left the labor market and given up looking for work that will pay wages high enough to make the effort worthwhile, is not a society that is functioning well. Add in the growing concentration of oligopolistic corporate power in industry after industry ― the real reason why United and other airlines get away with treating their customers so badly ― and the grip of big corporations and billionaires on campaign finance, and you have a system that is neither open nor likely to feel equal, to a significant proportion of voters. This is a big reason why the U.S. fares poorly on an index that measures the preparedness of Western countries to adapt to an ever-changing global society. The 2050 Index, conducted by my educational charity, The Wake Up Foundation, which is dedicated to building public awareness of the deleterious trends under way in Western societies, shows that the U.S. comes a lowly 23rd out of 35 countries in its preparedness for future trends and shocks — that’s lower even than France, which sits at 20th. America is clearly not as open, equal or well prepared as it needs to be. If we lose our sense of equality, then disillusion and anger make solutions based on closing borders and minds more appealing. Those two words ― open and equal ― are crucial words for the whole of the West. Populist nationalists such as Trump and Le Pen have sought to frame the debate as being about globalism versus patriotism. But that is to divert attention from the true issue. The real issue is that open, liberal societies have in the past succeeded by combining openness with a strong sense of equality ― a winning formula that has become neglected for so long that today it’s been effectively rendered obsolete. Openness is vital to bring new ideas, people and opportunities — all the virtues of competition, accountability and decentralization. But equality has been vital to build the social trust necessary to make the bracing changes brought by such openness acceptable. If we are all in it together, as citizens, with equal political voices, with equal protection by the rule of law and equal opportunities arising from education and meritocracy, then openness works. If we lose that sense of equality, then disillusion and anger sets in, and alternative solutions based on closing borders and minds seem more appealing. That is where we are now. Liberal ideas ― in the classic, English sense of liberalism ― are not in retreat. The problem is that over the past 10 to 15 years we failed to maintain and implement those ideas. We failed to deliver the combination of security, rising living standards and equality of treatment that citizens had come to expect. We forgot that our own successful formula, the most successful political idea the world has ever seen, requires us to not only be open to new ideas, but give all political actors equal voice as well. Winning was the easy part for Macron. Now, he’ll have to revive France. Now, ideas about openness and equality need to win elections, as they have just done in France. But even more than that, they need to be restored and reimplemented in public policy and political institutions in all our countries, so as to restore social mobility and a vital sense of shared citizenship. Winning was the easy part for Emmanuel Macron, happy though he will be to have won more decisively than opinion polls had predicted. Reviving France, with all the open, international engagement through NATO and the EU to which it has long been committed, will require a keen and credible focus on equality, too. The same is true of other countries in the West. This battle promises to be long and hard. But it must be won. Otherwise, in the next election season, enemies of openness such as Le Pen will be back, stronger than ever.
Here's more: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-macron-20170508-story.html Op-Ed France's election proves it — America is now an example of what not to do Emmanuel Macron will be the youngest president in France's history. (May 8, 2017) (Sign up for our free video newsletter here http://bit.ly/2n6VKPR) Max Boot Americans have a long and ignoble tradition of telling jokes about the French. Old chestnuts such as “I'm selling a French rifle: Never shot, dropped only once” became popular again in 2003 when the French — wisely as it turns out — refused to join their U.S. allies in the invasion of Iraq. The House of Representatives cafeteria even renamed French fries, “freedom fries.” Turns out the joke’s on us. The American electorate in November chose as our president an international laughingstock who is ignorant and impetuous, his chief saving grace being that his extremism is tempered by his incompetence. By contrast, on Sunday, the French electorate decisively defeated Marine Le Pen, who trafficked in the same sort of racist and xenophobic rhetoric that Donald Trump rode to the White House. The winner by a landslide was Emmanuel Macron, who is young (at only 39, he is the youngest leader France has had since Napoleon), telegenic, intelligent and resolutely centrist. (Maybe the French should now, as suggested by Michael Tomasky, start calling steak well done with ketchup —Trump’s preference — bifteck a l’Americaine. You wouldn't let a little thing like not having a corkscrew stop you from enjoying that bottle of wine you just bought, right? Watch these videos to see what lengths people will go to to open a bottle of wine in a pinch. The French were smarter than we were: They did not let Vladimir Putin cast a ballot in their election. It is telling that, while Barack Obama endorsed Macron, Trump openly pulled for Le Pen. It didn’t matter to him (or was he simply unaware?) that she and her National Front party have a long history of anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Americanism, pro-Putinism and Holocaust denial. Le Pen has tried to clean up her act in public, but her mask slipped when she denied Vichy France’s complicity in the deportation of French Jews to the concentration camps. She remains surrounded, according to one of her former advisors, by “real Nazis.” That did not deter Trump from delivering a quasi-endorsement. After a terrorist attack in Paris just before the first round of voting, Trump tweeted: “Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people of France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election!” He told the Associated Press: “I think that it’ll probably help her because she is the strongest on borders and she is the strongest on what’s been going on in France.” This turned out to be wishful thinking. The terrorist attack did not help Le Pen’s cause. Neither did the transparent attempts of the Russian intelligence services to target Macron the way they had targeted Hillary Clinton. Friday night, 9 gigabytes of stolen emails and documents from the Macron campaign appeared online on the 4Chan website favored by the alt right, soon to be picked up by WikiLeaks, the Kremlin’s bulletin board of choice. The digital fingerprints of Fancy Bear, the nickname for a group of Russian intelligence hackers, were reportedly all over this operation. Funny how pro-Kremlin candidates never seem to get hacked. It was too little, too late. In fact, because of a French blackout of election-related news the day before and the day of an election, all that voters knew was that someone — almost certainly someone in Moscow — was trying to sabotage the Macron campaign. The French were mercifully spared the kind of credulous reporting on the contents of the leak that occurred in the United States, where news outlets used Kremlin-provided documents to embarrass and distract the Clinton campaign. The French were smarter than we were: They did not let Vladimir Putin cast a ballot in their election. In fairness, however, France, and indeed the whole world, benefited from watching what happened in the United States. Our presidential election made clear that populist-nationalist extremists are a serious threat — they can actually take power. Voters elsewhere have been forewarned and forearmed, which surely helped to account for the failure of ultra-nationalist candidates in the Austrian, Dutch and now French elections. Once a shining city on a hill, America is now an example of what not to do. That France rejected Le Pen, and so decisively, is a welcome message that the center, socially liberal but market-oriented, can still hold in spite of the disorienting disturbances wrought in all modern societies by the forces of automation, immigration, de-industrialization, globalization and multiculturalism — all phenomena that are particularly disruptive to poorer, less-educated voters. But to hold extremism at bay, Macron will have to prove a more effective president than the Socialist he once served and now replaces — Francois Hollande. France must still deal with a large, unassimilated class of Muslim immigrants who are prey to crime and terrorism; with unsustainable levels of government spending (57% of GDP); high unemployment (10.1% overall; 23.7% among the young); and crippling regulations, such as a 35-hour workweek, that hold back the economy (1.1% growth last year). Macron will somehow have to cut government spending and taxes, loosen regulations and enhance assimilation. If he does not succeed, rest assured that either Le Pen or some other demagogue will arise in the future. But for now at least the danger of an illiberal rabble-rouser taking office has been averted in France — if not, alas, here. Max Boot is a contributing writer to Opinion and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Good article and hits on a lot of good points. I will say that conservatism is in the exact same spot as the author describes liberalism. Both sides are closed to new ideas. Both sides depend on people keeping their eyes closed and not seeing the world for what it really is.
garbage written by a 2nd rate political hack. most of the article is calling trump and his suppoters names without making any real point.
Well written... In short... the French were smarter not to be fooled by the female version of Donald Trump to elect. Righties can cry now about or start to attack the French as being fools (what still happened in other threads) with BS slogans like "France voted against France" etc. ... because they are hopeless to see uncomfortable realities.
The Europhiles seem to think that all this stuff has just come out of nowhere. Until they fix their Union they'll keep losing ground. A few suggestions: 1. You cannot give nations fiscal power, but the Union monetary power. It doesn't work. When populism takes hold the nations will spend more than they can, and when it comes time to pay they are unable to simply devalue their currency and print off whatever the debt is. This leaves them held hostage, like Greece. 2. Would you tolerate Russia taking over EU border states? I doubt it. Expect further friction with Russia if you continue to poke the beast with association agreements to old Soviet bloc states. The goal, presumably, should be peaceful coexistence. It's almost too late to deescalate. 3. Decide and be clear about your end game. Do you want a United States of Europe? If so, commit to that and argue for it. But people are starting to see a Europe in which the mere concept of a nation state is taboo, and the Europhiles are often too secretly tempted by ever greater union to either argue convincingly for it, or put people's fears at rest. 4. For the love of God, fix your immigration system. Erdogan controls the floodgates in an entirely unnecessary game of chess. Put into place more programs for housing in home countries, refuse to take undocumented arrivals, ship them back to one of these camps. The situation Europe is in is a moral hazard. This is pretty much the only irreparable flaw with the EU as it stands - without the immigration disaster there is no Brexit, there is no LePen, chances are Trump wouldn't have had the momentum. It's not hard. Stop letting ideology get in the way of practicality. Do you want an EU or not? Decide.
Pretty much all of what you say is bullshit. 1. Thats nonsense. If nations act careful they get no problems. If not we force them to act careful. Like greece. 2. Ever ehared about sovereign nations? Russia has nothing to offer. Eastern european nations want join EU. You want hold them in misery forever because russia feels desperate about its own sad state? What do you tell you people in Kiew who want association with Berlin, Paris and Madrid and not Novosibirsk? 3. end games are decided at the end. 4. is done right now
A Le Pen victory would have had neo-nazis and white supremacists giddy, but the centrist's overwhelming triumph, following the radical right's rejection in Netherlands and Austria (and followed by extremists' vanquishment in South Korea) merely asserts stability and provides a basis for progress. Reports of Paris burning have been greatly exaggerated. The far right had held out hope to the bitter end:
This is simply a puff piece for Leftism that is bursting at the seams with crap. The problem with Left-wing liberals like the writer of this piece is that they have a romanticized and narrow view of history. They pick their myths and try to force reality to conform to those myths. In the case of Europe, there's some things that need to be realized. The first is that Europe has already reached its apex. The pinnacle of European power was the beginning of the 20th century before the First World War. Europe has been in relative decline ever since. Yes, life is in many ways better for Europeans, but European power and influence have decreased relative to other parts of the world and will continue to do so if Europe remains on the current path. This relative decline has been masked by the (increasingly narrowing) technological and economic gap between Europe and rising powers of the third world. Leftist liberals like this writer speak with an unearned attitude of triumphalism when it comes to their values. Flabby and cliched notions of "openness" and "equality" didn't make the West the best. It was the self-confidence and willpower to stand up and proclaim (and in many cases impose) these values that put the West in the high position of influence it reached in world affairs. As things are now, the West (Europe in particular) seems to be undergoing an identity crisis. What does it mean to be European? What does it mean to be Western? Is it even worth identify as either? Is there any point in even having a sovereign nation any more? These are questions that are not being answered with any confidence. The establishment figures running the EU and many European governments often act counter-intuitively to the interests of European civilization and culture. The people within the borders of the EU are increasingly seen as interchangeable economic units, not members of a community, possessing a national or cultural identity, who have roots, history, and legitimate interests in their home countries. On questions of immigration the public is constantly lectured about the ambiguous benefits of mass immigration. The case in favor is almost always economic in nature, but there are more important things than economics. Issues of culture and identity matter, but Westerners have in many ways been taught to be ashamed or apologetic about their culture and identity. Suffering for the sake of "the other" (simply because they are non-Western), even to the point of self-destruction is now seen as virtuous. This is an absurd and suicidal morality that has been self-imposed upon Westerners. Never has this suicidal impulse been on greater display than the virtue signalling policies of European countries in the ongoing migrant crisis. No single politician that arranges the mass importation of these migrants has to deal with the consequences. They and their children (if they have any) won't hangout in the towns and neighborhoods where migrants are settled, they won't go to the same schools, they won't ever have to associate with these migrants except in carefully coordinated photo ops. Average people instinctively realize this, but understand a whole lot more. They increasingly learn that the establishment never has their back, never puts their interests first, and never sympathizes with their struggles. They are constantly stepped over by their own countrymen so that their out of touch politicians can get some personal sense of fulfillment or validation out of prioritizing "the other" over their own people. These sentiments are the origin of the populist storm that brought about Trump and Brexit. It's not over, and it's not going away any time soon. Why? Because nothing will change. Le Pen lost, but the realities that even got her ideas this far aren't changing, they will only get worse unless their is a radical change in direction for Europe and the West at large.
So true. We needed a Macron in our last election, but instead got two nutcases. At least France has a prayer.
Good point on equality. Equality is part of democracy - that is at least working to give people equality of opportunity. Western Governments have sold democracy to neo liberalism and corporate power. We are basically plutocracies. Our leaders serve the rich rather than the people. In such a situation the very framework of democracy is crushed. Having shared beliefs like that of equal rights and equal opportunities disappear and as we see the right come in with their blaming of the other rather than protecting all citizens which is part of democracy. It is right that Macron does not mean liberalism is safe - but liberalism in so far as equality of opportunity and equal rights is dying under neo liberalism and Corporate Power. These are the issues which need to be sorted out if we are to remain as liberal democracies. I suspect Macron knows that. The right offer basically ethnic nationalism. That is what it is in Europe and very much the same in the US from what I have seen. Very much the same in England as well. The establishment tries to carry on with neo liberalism and corporate power while claiming to still be liberal democracies but the reality is neo liberalism and Corporate power has produced Plutocracies and they are an oxymoron to democracy. Due to its commitment to neo liberalism and corporate power the establishment bit by bit seems to be accepting the position of the far right. - Certainly in the UK that is the case. UKIP is finished. They accept it is because the Tories have stolen their song. Indeed some people believe the current Tory Government is much more right wing that UKIP could even have dreamt of a few years ago. The establishment in many countries may become the far right. What the establishment fears far more than the far right is the left - people like Jeremy Corbyn, Sanders and so on and I suspect the reason for this is because they do carry the philosophy of Western liberal democracy but also recognise that it is the current financial situation which is the problem - our politicians serving neo liberalism and Corporate power being an oxymoron to liberal democracy. That is the issue Macron needs to deal with if he wants to sort the situation out. If not then France will either move to the far right or back to a social democratic country. The establishment imo will make sure the second does not happen in order to preserve its plutocracy. Macron though may give surprises. He may be able to pull it off but one thing is sure, if we do not find another economic system to stop our politicians serving neo liberalism and corporate power, Western liberal democracy is finished.
Allow me to correct that from a Democrat's party's point of view. "We needed a Macron in our last election and instead got a corrupt Macaroon that couldn't beat her way out of a wet paper bag or a buffoon."
France has more than two parties. Obviously a superior system to what we've ended up with. There's no room left for centrists with both parties moving to extremes.
Here's more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/taking-liberties-with-france-1494285220 OPINION MAIN STREET Taking Liberties with France Macron inherits a nation lacking in both religious and economic freedom. During Emmanuel Macron’s speech in Paris, May 7. PHOTO: MAXPPP/ZUMA PRESS By William McGurn May 8, 2017 7:13 p.m. ET France’s long and troubled relationship with the liberty part of liberté, égalité and fraternité isn’t hard to understand once you realize that the national motto goes back to Robespierre. Unfortunately, Sunday’s presidential election confirms that the French ambivalence to liberty remains alive—and debilitating. In his victory speech, Emmanuel Macron told his fellow French citizens that the election turned “a new page in our history.” This is doubtful. The more prosaic explanation is that, given the choice before them, French voters reasonably opted for the certainty of a status quo with some tinkering around the edges over the uncertainty of radical disruptions promised by Marine Le Pen and her National Front party. In an election that saw the first French president decline to seek a second term, the humiliating public repudiation of the establishment parties, and the election of the youngest French leader since Napoleon, the most striking aspect was that there was no real challenge to the reigning political orthodoxies. Indeed, in a race supposedly filled with so much anger and angst, the greatest irony is that the candidate furthest outside the French mainstream, Ms. Le Pen, far from questioning these orthodoxies promised to double down on them. What are these orthodoxies? There are two. The first is the state’s dominant role in the French economy. The second is the state’s role as enforcer of France’s official nonreligion, done formally under the principle of laïcité, a century-old innovation whose original purpose was to check the Catholic Church. Apparently it occurs to no one in France that a fair part of their two chief crises—a stagnant economy and a Muslim minority that has not assimilated—are fueled by the same source: a lack of liberty. France’s lack of economic freedom is no secret. Whether it is the exalted role the French government plays in private enterprises or the state itch to intervene in any economic arrangement between consenting French adults, the assumption is that government knows best. One price of this arrangement is unemployment that hovers at around 10% overall, and at more than 20% for people under 25. To his credit, Mr. Macron promises reforms such as eliminating 120,000 state jobs, cutting the corporate tax rate and making it easier to hire and fire workers. But anyone who thinks Mr. Macron a champion of economic freedom would do well to check out his Trump-like push for a “Buy European” program, as well as his vow to make “the protection of European industry” central to “re-inventing” the European Union. Even so, while it’s easy to blame France’s leaders for their dirigiste instincts, the sad truth is that these men and women are probably more liberal than the people they represent. Put it this way: Whenever some foreign producer introduces the least form of competition—whether it’s an Uber car ride or Spanish fruit—what’s the popular response? Riots and resentment. There’s a similar dynamic in religion. In the past, a right-wing French candidate might have opposed laïcité in an effort to consolidate support from the nation’s Catholic voters. But Ms. Le Pen recognized that laïcité could be a club against Muslims. It’s worked that way, too, on everything from the ban on headscarves to the removal of non-pork alternatives from school menus. The state strategy is to force French Muslims to assimilate by cracking down on their religious expression and demanding they become good European secularists. In an article last year in the New Republic, Elizabeth Winkler addressed the flaw in this approach: “In the wake of terrorist attacks, it may strike some as counterintuitive to loosen—or even abandon—laïcité,” she wrote. “But allowing Muslims greater freedom to express their beliefs in peaceful ways may make them feel more accepted and less stigmatized by the country they have made their home.” Again, French orthodoxy holds that strictly enforcing secularity will make societies tolerant. But even on its own terms, that’s not the way it’s working out. The same French government that insists on limiting religious expression has proved unable either to assimilate French Muslims or to keep French Jews safe from Islamist attack. The somewhat hopeful news is that Mr. Macron has made comments—e.g., that laïcité should not be “vindictive”—that hint he might recognize that a cramped French secularism may be making things worse rather than better. But even if he does, it’s not clear the French public is ready for more religious freedom. A recent poll by Ipsos, for example, found the vast majority welcoming restrictions on Muslim expression. This is the France Mr. Macron inherits, whose citizens believe authorities should police the bathing suits of Muslim women and make life difficult for any foreigner who dares to offer French men and women some product or service at a better value than what they are now getting. If Mr. Macron really hopes to reinvigorate this France, the best way to start is by pushing for more liberté, not less. Write to mcgurn@wsj.com. Appeared in the May. 09, 2017, print edition.
For economic Freedom here they are simply talking about neo liberalism and Corporate Power - suggesting that France still has not fully embraced it. Neo liberalism is simply a formula for reducing workers rights (freedoms) and producing plutocracies. You are correct that Macron was believed to be likely to engage in 'deregulation' and take France further along neo liberalism. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/globalism-neoliberalism-big-questions-time/ This is the reason why the Left Candidate Mélenchon said he would not be voting for either Macron or Le Pen and is the most likely reason why there was a far lower turnout in France than usual - apparently the lowest since 1969. Now with Le Pen the author obviously knows nothing about the European attitude towards the far right. Historically Europe has put a 'Cordon sanitaire' around them. This would result in coalitions refusing to allow them in and in situations like the second round of the French Election all parties coming together for whoever is in opposition to them. For this reason Varoufakis criticised the choice some were making not to vote. He said regardless of how much he disapproved of neo liberalism and Corporate power, fascism was the most dangerous thing and everyone always should come together against it. He also said that he had found Macron the most open during the Greek Crises and seemed to have some hope he might be able to make some positive change. Your article when talking about economic freedom, is just talking about securing neo liberalism and corporate power. This is totally different to western liberal democracy given that it destroys democracies and gives rise to plutocracies and this is what has given the far right some following in Europe. Your article seems to think possibly people should have gone for le Pen. Like I said the establishment is far more keen to support the Far Right than the left. The problem remains the economic system and to some extent it may be a race against time to find a new way for economics to work which will allow the continuation of Western liberal democracies or we may be facing a dark age of fascism. That is what those left of fascism should be working for.
Saying Macron wants to deregulate is a half truth at best. It'd be a bit like saying he wants a small military. No, he wants a small French military and bureaucracy so that these powers can be moved to the EU superstate. A bit like saying California Democrats don't want environmental protection because they went them at the Federal level.
You are twisting what I said in order to change it to what you want to say. My argument was against neo liberalism and Corporate power being 'freedom' and the fact that that is what is pushing people towards far right groups in the West. Like many people including both Mélenchon and Varoufakis I am in favour of a Reformed EU and see neo liberalism and Corporate power as being what is destroying Liberal Democracies - turning them into Plutocracies. I believe the only way for Liberal democracies to be continued is to find a new economic way of working. Currently Governments have lost control of economics and have found themselves serving the richest rather than their people. This is a Plutocracy. In order to get back liberal democracies we need to change the economics so that Governments not the very wealthiest are running our countries. I do not support going the far right route into fascism.
There are a lot of things coming down the pipe that are contrary to what one would have expected. Expect to see Scotland formally secede before long, expect Northern Ireland to secede and join Ireland proper. And you can expect the rise of the right in Europe to continue. Traditionally there is this notion of a pendulum - for some reason when it had swung to the left in Europe, people somehow expected that to be it - like it was done swinging. But Le Pen did very well with the youth. She did best with people 40 and under (who, you know, aren't dying anytime soon), and in the first round polling she was getting 40% of the 18-24 vote (again, first round voting - that's huge in the first round). The things which have agitated populations and led to the rise of the right in Europe (probably) aren't going away - and you'll continue to see support for the right rise. Now, would Le Pen get enough support change to win in the next French election? Almost certainly not. And we don't know what will happen in the next few years in France. Terrorism incidents had an enormous recent spike, which contributed to Le Pen's rise. If that rise continues unabated, well, then you might actually see Le Pen get enough support to win in 5 years (though I doubt that will continue to rise as it has). And it's important to remember why Macron did so well - he was a moderate up against a rightist candidate. And, contrary to the many times we've seen basically out and out leftists be called moderates, Macron actually is pretty moderate. Had the socialist party won, like they did last time, then we would likely see such ideological bumbling of France's issues that a Le Pen could win next time (and the election would have been much closer). But I don't expect that from Macron.
The tide has turned against the far right in Europe. Brexit and Trump was enough to scare the crap out of everyone. The Netherlands, Austria & France have, so far, said no to the populist nationalists. Germany will almost certainly do the same in September. This doesn't let the liberals (center right, middle, left) off the hook, the problems are real and must be addressed. I do believe they will be........
Ok just to let you know Scotland is not Nationalist in the generally accepted view of Nationalism despite the SNP having that turd word in it's name. Scotland is an inclusive country and has not been moving to the right like England has. I think it is much more likely that Ireland will unite if Scotland goes for Independence. For this reason we are going through a spell now where the Tories are trying to get the far right established in Scotland. Hopefully we will beat that and go for Independence instead but while England may well join the far right of Europe and the US an Independent Scotland unless there is unforeseeable changes will not.
Well I am glad your are optimistic. It must be the difference is meaning between the UK and US but I do not understand all these 'liberals' you speak of that can be on the right/center and left. Are you referring to people who believe in liberal social policy - equal rights and so on which a democracy ought to have and/or are you referring to neo liberalism - the economic system we are under which does also in theory support these rights? Neo Liberalism has allowed a Plutocracy. Those moving to the far right are quite correct in that. A plutocracy cannot in reality go for equal rights. It's job is to serve the needs of the most wealthy not to act as a democracy. Hence if the situation is to be dealt with and far right fascism defeated, there is a fundamental need to get rid of neo liberalism and find an economic system which can support democracy and those things that go with that - equal rights, equal opportunities, care of the environment etc. I am not as optimistic as yourself although I do agree it is possible. How do you see this achieved?
I am not going to read this entire thread, but I hope someone has pointed out to you that Macron is a centrist.
The US also has more than two parties. Like France, the United States has two parties that dominate most elections. Unlike France those parties haven't completely fallen apart yet.
