Clement Viktorovitch is interested Tuesday in the communication of the government in this period of pre-presidential campaign. Faced with unreasonable opposition, the members of the presidential majority would be the only ones not to have switched… to ideology?
This is what one might think if one listens to Gabriel Attal, the government spokesperson. On Tuesday morning, he was the guest of Europe 1, to talk in particular about France’s energy policy and the place of the car in the mobility of the French. And on these two subjects, the same word came back to qualify the words of the other presidential candidates: “We can see that there are a lot of political leaders, in a pre-presidential context, who make ideology (….) We have heard a lot of ideologies on this subject (…) ideological means of campaigning (…) We are not here to make ideology (….) There are ideologies … ”
Ideology! A word with pejorative scents that comes up five times in just 13 minutes of interview. It is therefore not a coincidence, but an element of language. Here we have the government’s strategy to try to disqualify its opponents, before the president enters the official campaign.
Disqualification strategy, perhaps, but isn’t the word justified? This is the whole question. Let’s examine this calmly while listening, for example, how Gabriel Attal presents the vision of ecology carried by his opponents: “You have, on the right, a line which is still climatosceptic. There is a deputy LR, until recently, who spoke in the hemyclicle of the National Assembly to questions to the government and who spoke of ‘alleged warming climate “, denying the existence of global warming. You have that on the right! Then you have, on the left, especially among the Greens, some who explain to you that ultimately ecology should be reduced to tax, punish and sanction. ”
It’s interesting what Gabriel Attal says. The right would still be climate skeptic. The proof: one of their deputies questioned global warming. That is ! But is that the general position at Les Républicains? Absolutely not ! We could debate whether they are fully aware of the magnitude of the challenges we are facing. But, by and large, all of the right-wing primary contenders today agree with the IPCC’s conclusions. To bring the line of his adversary back to the marginal statements of one of his members, that has a name: it is called the strategy of the straw man, and it is a fallacy, a fallacious process. It consists of caricaturing a position until it seems to refute itself.
It is this same process which is used to speak of those for whom ecology “would boil down to tax, punish and sanction”. This is obviously a gross exaggeration of the positions held by environmentalists, who, whatever one thinks about it, deploy a thought otherwise more complex and measured. We are, again, in the middle of the straw man fallacy. So yes, for sure, once you have caricatured the arguments of your opponents, it becomes easier to accuse them of ideology.
But isn’t the government also an ideologue? Oh no, of course! The government is in charge of solving the problems of the French, as Gabriel Attal insists: “It would be a mistake on our part to say: we are going to stop acting, we are going to raise the pencil, to devote ourselves to the presidential election. The French, they expect us to respond to their problems and that is what we are doing. We are not for or against cars, we are here to help the French. ” The government is therefore content to help the French, to solve their problems, in short, it is pragmatic, realistic and, above all, it does not fall into ideology! This argument is worth dwelling on, because members of the executive have been telling us over and over again for over four years. That’s enough.
The definition of politics is that it is always about choice. Choices based on different appreciations of what is present; oriented by divergent estimates of what will be the future; guided by opposing values. Choices that benefit some to the detriment of others. And it all has a name: it’s called ideology.
Our government, just as much as its adversaries, is guided by an ideology. We can debate the name to give it. Some would say liberalism, others globalism, or even social democracy. But what is certain is that it is neither pragmatism nor realism. These words are nothing other than the disguise which the dominant ideology adorns itself to disqualify its competitors. It is time for the government to embrace its choices for what they are. In politics, there is never only one option. And no one can claim, for himself alone, the monopoly of reason.