With the approach of the legislative elections in France, “the Union on the left” gives a breath of hope to the disappointed supporters of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who, for the second time, narrowly missed reaching the second round of presidential campaign.
The national failure of the leader of La France insoumise was demoralizing on several levels: the worst for me, who lives in the United States, was the absence of diversity among Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen during their non-debate of the April 20.
Insults aside, there was more consensus than disagreement between these two right-wing candidates, evidenced by their choice of safe political terrain. No one is for weakened purchasing power; no one applauds mass illegal immigration; no one wants to destroy the structure of the European Union all at once; no one praises Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The angry subjects have been brushed aside or set aside: growing gap between rich and poor; free trade and relocation of industries; concentration of powers, but also of economic and media assets in the hands of fewer and fewer people; taxes that should be appropriate for the ultra-rich and wealthy; overreliance on nuclear energy; brutal treatment of Yellow Vests by the police.
Even from a theatrical point of view, the “confrontation” left much to be desired. When the president accused Marine Le Pen of being the indebted darling of Putin and Russian banks, she didn’t have the brilliance to throw out the obvious retort: ”Mr. Macron, you’re the former banker, you are you the intimate of the creditor world. Like many French people, I struggle to make my monthly loan payment. »
However, the renewed candidacy of Mélenchon – he now seeks the post of Prime Minister, indirectly, by trying to elect a majority of his coalition to the Assembly – has allowed the rhetoric of the left to regain its momentum. Despite being criticized for his vague interpretation of the Constitution — the president appoints the prime minister, not the people by direct vote — Mélenchon seized the tactical opportunity to combat right-wing liberalism. , as well as soft left neoliberalism. Within this framework, he had already developed an extremely detailed program for the presidential campaign — today modified according to the practical needs of his New People’s Ecological and Social Union (NUPES) — which is worth reading.
However, the raw findings of a list of 650 measures do not seem to me sufficient to revive an inspiring idea of the left and give importance to a movement opposed to unbridled capitalism.
The right always tends to downplay leftist programs by characterizing them as undeserved “benefits”. You have to work, save, pay taxes — even suffer — to enjoy the fruits of society. Praise entrepreneurs who create wealth by taking risks that ordinary people would never dare to attempt.
The answer from the left should be that, in their philosophy, it is not about free or guaranteed “benefits”, but rather protection against exploitation of the market and of merchants, whatever their motivations. Let’s not talk about the welfare state, but rather about the protective state.
Of course, I take my ideas from the great politicians of the 1930s, like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Leon Blum. But it was ultimately literature that influenced me the most in my left-wing politics — Zola, above all, in Germinal and money. Who can remain insensitive to the misery and the almost suicidal courage of Etienne, the striking coal miner, and to the mad and dangerous ambition of Saccard, the capitalist and speculator?
More recently, I came across two passages of the country of othersby Leila Slimani, which further illustrate my point, because Slimani is by no means Zola — in fact, she was appointed to Macron’s service as his personal representative for the Francophonie.
There are two entrepreneurs in his novel, hard-working Moroccan farmer Amine and a wealthy French settler, Mariani, who is mildly racist. The protagonist, Mathilde, an immigrant from Alsace, would like Amine, her husband obsessed with success, to be good-natured and relaxed, like her own father, Georges, “who had for the man… a benevolent pity, a tenderness which earned him the sympathy of strangers. In business, “Georges never negotiated out of greed, but simply for fun and, if he happened to trick someone, it was without doing so on purpose”. Amine, “serious” and “relentless”, pursues his ambition so far as to ask for the help of the reactionary anti-Maghrebi Mariani, whose condescension towards him is insulting. But Mariani isn’t quite tough; he “turned his head towards him and, as if he had sensed that Amine was hurt, said to him: ‘You want a tractor, right? It must be able to be arranged.” “.
Here, then, are two capitalists described as good-hearted, walking in the benevolent spirit of liberalism. A right-wing ideologue would say this demonstrates the side benefit of the free market. On the contrary. Georges exploits “unintentionally”; the help offered by Mariani is capricious. A leftist policy not only protects against intentional exploitation, but also against accidental or random abuse.
In short, a popular government would prevent Amine from having to beg from Mariani and would lend him the money to buy his tractor without shenanigans.
John R. MacArthur is editor of Harper’s Magazine.
His column returns at the beginning of each month.