In my last scrutinisation of the last (to this date) presidential election of the Fifth republic - and the glorious or sordid prospect for a sixth - I conceded the grand, if not exactly Gaullesque ambitions of Madame Le Pen might yet result in her combustion.
To this backdrop, even with the many, and very French, cases of resistance to - I would not call it incompetence, who for his coldness or banker-ness or presumed betrayal of a programme he announced very clearly, or the party which took him there and which he stepped out of without really changing - M. Macron it would seem apparent, even appropriate, to recognise his unprecedented (since, bar a case of chalefing Le Pen Père, Mitterrand in 1988) re-election as expected. But whereas his election in 2017 was certainly expected, it was never taken for granted as the just-mentioned case of Le Pen's father losing out in 2002. Certainly heavy voices expected a "left-oozing" Macron, just out of the Socialist party once of Mitterrand, Mauroy and Jospin, to fight a heavy fight with a right-wing bloc firmly, if not blazingly, standing behind his opponent.
But as any Leninist would tell you: Fascism is little but capitalism in decay, or rather or more precisely, the most extreme, chauvinistic and violent elements of finance capital (ofttimes composed of "lower" elements pressed by the said decays of capitalism) hence created and tactfully unleashed, guided and financed against the rising tides of a potent workers' movement. And in order to put that label at Le Pen one would have to acclaim, even in 2017, that she was the candidate of big business. This assertion, while a case semantically could be spelled out, is so patently untrue that nobody bothered to make, lest they would immediately maim it. Unfortunately, such an analysis force us to consider some unfortunate truths about the Macron candidacy, and why this man formerly of the left (as was Mosley, Mussolini, and other M:s) is now the given, decent choice of big business.
What then, would make the fantastic words (I use the adjective not in the subjective sense) of Le Pen President in 2017 more of a reality in the world of today? Whereas the "fascist" label seems more distant - and admittedly less potent . with a Macron now labelled as a president des riches, of the capitalists in decay hoping for his resurrection (and the recapture of his reformist movement of the National Assembly, which between a strong, reformed Rassemblement and a united left seems more far-flung) for yet another five years, the frenzy with which the candidate of darkness must be denounced more firmly and earnestly than the decent, yet unabideable president of the wealthy, . The "woke", pseudo-progressive phenomenon so ostensibly portended by French intellectuals seems far less potent, so to speak, in France, and not least within the Melenchonist left, and with it, the outright support - if with token demonisations - of the candidate of the "decent", corporate-friendly center-left more concerned with teenagers' underwear and a vague unspecified "hatred" emanating, above all, from these opaque lower elements rather than spilling from the factually privileged down on them, than the rift which predisposes these classes in the first place. The left, if it was not clear already in 2017 - or well before then - is dead.
Le Pen President! So, why not? Why not in 2017? Well, it is aphoristically true that if the candidates are of the brand . Or, less phlegmatically, a candidate of the moderate center will gauge the extremes on one side alongside some of the moderates of the other, and thus conquer. But this asks only the further question how the candidates are placed on this scale, who gets to say whether Macron is in fact center-left or center-right, what the attributes of these "far-thing" people are, and if it does not align with the general presumptions on economics; who gets to distribute them. Who gets to paint you , and thus assure your opponent the presidency, and for how long will that work?
The presumption of Le Pen as the leftist in the race is thus more enticing than it was in 2017, and against the furore against Macron as a president or bankers, but not of brownshirts (as if the former were not behind the latter, remember?) and the experience of his factual policies for half a decade is now turning the wheel against this simplicitous case, "better (to be fucked by) the banker than the fascist". Well excuse me, but after five years (of wild, bloodied thrusting, and accompanying shrieks), who will repeat that chant but the most simple-minded? This is only exacerbated by the seeming unwillingness - very understandable, even if it could be called reckless - of Macron to see and care . To his credit, his has been a very open, announced and consistent journey across not classes, but actors on the political spectrum. He has, without apology and with very little disinformation (this word) claimed the French must work longer weeks, more years and possibly with less complaints and less pay, and they love him for it.
In a dictatorship, this insanity of coupling, or rather not-decoupling yourself from the one you hate, may well be explained in the imminent harm, rather than emptiness and despondency, such a divorce might immediately entailed. But this is a democracy, and supposedly a fair, broad and (in my own view) vibrant one, so, where are the options?
Melenchon, the man who would take the place not of Hollande, or Jospin, but of the broad leftist boglands they emerged from, the alligator not hesitant in striking out and grabbing for the chunk the workers' and students - and other groups but not foremost all these considered at the expense of the first, and with no identity considered before that of wage-earner - should have stood against Le Pen, and if he does, conventional wisdom will tell you that he might actually have it. I consider this one of the most apparent avenues for a Madame Le Pen victory, for reasons previously stated - a centre-right, or rather centrist candidate against a "far-left" breed will mobilise the entire right, and so by force of secret ballot there is less to keep the far-right stench out of the booths as keeping the previously (?) maximum-wage Melenchon out of their account books - but I am quite hesitant. Rather, and perhaps more depressingly, the solution of electing a Melenchon, a Saint-Just but thrice as old and short-sighted and with a glint of Obi-Wan (not only in his holographic performances) and emasculating him by dealing him an indelible right to far-right National Assembly with a majority kept by Republicans and Macronists, and a mongrel government eluding from that, and the defeats and shortfalls coming, would be preferable, even if the highest office would now truly (as it were, for a few years, in the 1980s) held by an enemy of bankers. This would be likely, and perhaps more easy to contain than Le Pen, and in fairness deal her supporters a number of key victories, particularly regarding trans-national financial and political institutions.
So why not woo her? Is this a question of brand, of the left having so firmly entrenched itself in a war against the dirty plebs and proles that have amassed themselves under the Rassemblement banner, hardly washed since last, and now poised to destroy the France of... who? Of Hugo, Balzac and Moliere? The France dreamed up by European bureaucrats? Why not select a Le Pen, give her a leftist ? Is this just too implausible?
