Well, well, well... Sigh...
I'm not going to lecture you on moral values or tell you who to vote for - I'm not legitimate enough to do that, I'm just another ordinary Joe. But, as I said at the very beginning beginning of this Blaugue, I'm trying to talk about our times and the way in which a 63 yo old fart sees it, receives it. So today, I'm going to try to share with you my thoughts following this 1st round of the french 2024 legislative elections, what I've drawn from it and what I'm going to do about it.
I will start by leaving aside the question of economic programs, because I will not base my position on them; they are just folklore. Why? Because the country is in debt like never before and every borrower is at the mercy of his creditors. Whatever the coherence or incoherence of the economic proposals, their level of seriousness or demagoguery, they will not be implemented. Remember Mitterrand, summoned in 1983 by all the financial authorities to “come to his senses”, ending up replacing Mauroy, an emblematic figure of the socialist left, with Fabius, a charisma-free administrator and graduate of the École nationale d'administration. At that time, France's debt was much lower than it is today.
Today it smells of a Greek-style scenario. We know how the Tsipras government ended up. Strengthened by the legitimacy of a popular referendum, they wanted to renegotiate the agreement on the Greek debt with their creditors. After a humiliating refusal, the government was forced to resign and the austerity measures were not questioned. Which shows that political will, like popular will, counts for little when you owe too much.
For those who haven't been paying close attention, let's summarize:
1) when you go into debt, your creditors have you by the balls
2) the more you borrow, the tighter the grip, the more it hurts and the less you can move
3) consequence: you don't move anymore otherwise they'll be cut off
What to do?
So what's left to decide? Well, the rest of the program. As for me, I already said, I feel rather “left-wing” but, and I have also already mentioned this, I don't really like parties, unions, in short, being enlisted, conscripted and following a leader with my finger on the seam of my trousers. Like any sensible voter, I tend to vote according to the model of society and the social climate that each block suggests. In this case, like many of us, I will vote to avoid this or that, more out of rejection than adhesion. When preparing for this type of vote, you take a sheet of paper and set out your priorities, the order of your enmities.
As far as I'm concerned, it's very simple:
1) Not the RN: because I don't believe at all in the party makeover carried out by Marine Le Pen. For me, it's just marketing. Also, I've always hated the intertwining of the Le Pen family and the FN party at first, then the RN, whether in terms of positions, finances, or political alliances/betrayals. It's the same nepotistic power management model as Putin's Russia or North Korea.
2) no Macronist majority: because I remember very well the deafness and violence towards the yellow vest movement, the way in which the proposals of the Citizens' Convention on Climate were thrown into the bin, the giveaways to the richest, the cuts to student grants, the humiliating humiliating “voucher policy” in which the recipient's portion is constantly reduced, “reforms” that always hit the same people, overplayed false compassion and now the systematic destruction of the entire political framework that allowed for discussion and possible cooperation.
3) Not Mélenchon and his entourage within the LFI: because however difficult the situation of the Palestinians may be, it should not be cynically exploited in France by politicians and especially not in these terms. Because Mélenchon is an old Stalinist-type loose cannon who knowingly plays against his own camp, again with sickening cynicism. Just ask yourself: who was the bogeyman constantly brandished by NFP's opponents? Mélenchon! Who does Bardella now want to face in debate? Mélenchon! As far as I'm concerned, he and his inner circle are as much a burden as they are destructive and as out of touch as the current government.
4) not abstaining: because abstaining automatically gives a vote to the RN. If I vote for an opponent of the RN, I cancel a vote that has gone to the RN. If I don't vote, because I “don't like any of them”, because “I'm not interested” or for any other bad reason, that vote for the RN that I don't cancel with my vote, it will count. A cap is only a cap if it's not a “brown cap”. But right now. . . the house is on fire.
In my constituency, it's true, I'm lucky: the RN was eliminated in the first round. Only an Macronist and a Socialist remain, so I will vote against the Macronist. I don't suffer from having to scrutinize the statements of an LFI or LR candidate, total comfort. But I know that if I had to, I would hold my breath and go vote. When there's a fire, you don't hesitate to use the fire hosepipes on the basis that you're afraid of a flood. It's as simple as that!
Still at the crossroads...
However, the current situation, while the result of a slow decomposition of our political life, due partly to the lack of vision, conviction and courage of our political class, and partly to the corruption of some of them, is also the result of the citizens' apathy and their “self-centeredness”: Me, myself and I first, and as long as everything is going more or less well for me, I'm not going to lift a finger. When you see that even in the current situation, a third of those registered did not show up for the first round, what do they need? Are they all extreme right?
Imagine, as is already the case in 47 constituencies, that you hadn't voted on Sunday and you woke up on the next Monday morning to find an RN representative elected in the first round? I would be twice as pissed off. And if the “ratonnades” (attacks on people of color), the “pogroms entre potes” (pogroms between friends) or the “cassages de PD” (assaults on gay people) were to proliferate tomorrow without you having at least tried to prevent it with your ballot paper, could you look at yourself in the mirror? I couldn't.
So yes, it's going to be a mess afterwards in any case. We could end up with an absolute National Front majority, or a National Front majority plus various suppletives, or without a majority, without any possible agreement; with a makeshift, fragile and unstable agreement, possibly with a president forced to resign, tough demonstrations, clashes between extremes in the street and a sharp deterioration of the economic situation when the markets get involved. The worst is always possible, I would even add highly probable. That is no reason to resign ourselves to it. To be resigned is to condemn yourself.
Wesh Bro!
P.S. For those who thought that the current situation was political fiction, that it was impossible, allow me to quote myself with a short text that I published on FB in December... 2014 !
Impossible is not French
I don't often talk about politics on FB, but I would just like to draw your attention to the notion of impossibility in politics. Throughout my life, I have heard all of the following:
– The left will never come to power, it's impossible, France is conservative and the left is divided -> François Mitterrand elected president on May 10, 1981.
- Chirac? Pff... He will never be elected President of the Republic, it's impossible, he's too nervous, not consensual enough -> Jacques Chirac was President of the Republic for 12 years, from 1995 to 2007.
– Le Pen will never make it to the second round, it's impossible, the French don't like extremists and, in any case, the FN doesn't want power -> April 21, 2002, Jean-Marie Le Pen qualifies for the second round of the presidential election.
- Sarkozy? No chance, impossible, too nervous, not enough style, he betrayed everyone -> Nicolas Sarkozy elected president in 2007.
- Hollande? Please, let me laugh. Impossible. Too neutral. Not charismatic enough. He will emerge from the primaries in pieces, and if he makes it that far, Sarko will tear him to shreds during the debate. -> François Hollande elected president in 2012.
Other things that seemed certain and sure didn't happen (the Balladur/Delors confrontation in '95, instead we had Jospin/Chirac - Jospin supposed to defeat Chirac in 2002, he didn't even make it past the first round), in short, I'm just trying to convince you of one simple thing: what we think is impossible often ends up happening.
The impossibility in politics is a variable notion that one should certainly not rely on to justify his own inaction.
