Publisher's Note — April 18, 2012, 1:05 pm

Tactics and Principle as French Near Vote

John R. MacArthur is publisher of Harper’s Magazine and author of the book You Can’t Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America. This column originally appeared in the Providence Journal on April 18, 2012.

It’s presidential-campaign season and once again I find myself impressed by the wealth of choices among the many candidates. There are center-right and center-left candidates of considerable standing, a true centrist candidate independent of the major parties, a far-right candidate who sometimes sounds like a left-winger, and a charismatic far-left candidate who appeals directly to supporters of the far right. Then there’s an acidly articulate Green candidate, who though low in the polls is hardly marginal, and four other fringe entries who seem worthy of attention.

I’m describing the French presidential election, which through the good fortune of dual citizenship affords me full participation. Indeed, I’m more excited about casting a ballot this Saturday at New York’s French Consulate, in my maternal language, than I am about casting it in November in my father’s native tongue.

Unlike voting in New York state, where the Electoral College votes are already pretty much guaranteed to go to President Obama, I feel that my French vote really counts, since France provides for direction election of its president. Moreover, in the French election there are two rounds of balloting, the first permitting the luxury of either a tactical or principled vote. Last time, in 2007, I was dissuaded from a principled, but wasteful, vote for José Bové, the radical environmentalist jailed for leading the “dismantling” of a McDonald’s under construction. Instead, I voted for François Bayrou, the “centrist” whose candidacy was promoted by some of my left-wing friends as a way to break the two-party domination of an overly bourgeois Socialist Party and Nicolas Sarkozy’s increasingly rightist UMP party.

If Bayrou, rather than the Socialist candidate, Ségoléne Royal, had come in second to the favored Sarkozy, he might well have won in the second-round run-off, thus killing two birds with one stone: the hated right-winger and the largely establishment Socialist, thus allowing the rise of a stronger, more authentically “left” party.

As it happened, Royal had more staying power than expected, so Bayrou came in third, and I felt obliged to vote for the losing Socialist in the second round. Since that election, the winner, Sarkozy, has disgraced himself to many on both the right and the left, with his penchant for consorting with the rich and famous (the French call it “bling-bling’’) and his endlessly contradictory strategic maneuvers that one day make him look like a National Front immigrant basher and American-style free trader, and the next a fearless French nationalist who stands up against international finance. I dislike Sarkozy’s sucking up to the Bush family, his implied repudiation of President Jacques Chirac’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and his cynical support of Obama’s Afghanistan catastrophe. Also annoying, Sarko has lately been appealing, Nixon-like, to his “silent majority’’ to come scream for him at mass rallies.

This year, however, I needn’t resort to such a tactic because, though Bayrou is back, there is a better than symbolic candidate on the left, the Socialist renegade Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who, with Communist backing, is pushing the soft Socialist, François Hollande, to make more aggressive statements against big banks, the superrich, and such American/NATO military interventions as Afghanistan. In many respects a left-wing nationalist—a throwback to the Jacobins of the French Revolution—he also denounces “free trade” and “liberal” economic theory, which he rightly sees as anti-democratic and anti-working class. So Mélenchon can poach on the turf of Marine Le Pen, the ultranationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-European leader of the National Front who wants to restore the franc. For years, Le Pen and her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, have been attracting support from disaffected former Communists by attacking free trade, globalization, and job outsourcing.

But Mélenchon, unlike Le Pen, is no spoiler; although campaigning hard, he’s essentially pledged to throw his support to Hollande if the pro-Europe Socialist makes the first cut with Sarkozy, and has signaled he may run in June for a seat in the National Assembly to advance his Left Front. Mélenchon has also shown integrity by declaring he won’t accept a position in a Hollande cabinet as compensation. For someone like me, Mélenchon presents a principled, guilt-free alternative—or does he?

The French do not universally love their political system. Many would no doubt agree with the headline on a recent Economist editorial saying that France is “in denial,” with all the candidates “completely” ignoring the “grimmer” “fundamentals” of high public debt and public spending and undercapitalized banks. Eric Chol, editor of Courrier International, calls the current race a perpetuation of “a big farce: the myth of the omnipotent president of the republic,” who, like Charles De Gaulle, can change society through sheer personality. After the election, writes Chol, “Reality will soon quickly reassert its rights,” a reality that includes a well-ensconced European Union backed by a powerful lobby of free traders, plutocrats, and pro-American supporters of NATO.

All this is relative: Not even the candidates of the “right” propose rolling back France’s excellent national health-care system, or devolving centralized government power to France’s “départements” à la American states’ rightists. But the cleavage over American-style capitalism as applied in Europe, NATO, and Afghanistan is sort of thrilling.

So I detoured to Paris on Saturday just to soak up the atmosphere. Over drinks at the Odessa Café, in Montparnasse, I encountered stirrings of disillusionment with Mélenchon, whom my friend, Guy, called idiotic for letting slip his possible run for the National Assembly a week before the presidential balloting—a concession before the vote and almost the same day of his final mass meeting in Marseilles. Another friend, Jean-Philippe, jokingly predicted a Mélenchon-Sarkozy runoff. The polls indicate Hollande is just ahead of Sarkozy, with a surging Mélenchon placing third.

After some good Bordeaux, my choice did not seem simple; things got worse the next day when my Air France hostess reminded me of the risk of helping the right with a vote for the hard left. What if Hollande didn’t reach round two and Le Pen sneaked by both leftists to face Sarkozy, as her father did in 2002 to face Chirac in an all-right finale?

I could abstain, like the left-wing intellectual Michel Onfray, who hates people like Sarkozy and Hollande with their admiration of aspects of American capitalism but objected this week, in a widely publicized essay, to Mélenchon’s supposed tolerance of Cuban, Iranian, and Chinese “dictatorships.’’ But I can’t stand Sarkozy, so maybe I’ll go for the safe vote and save my principles for another day.

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

From the January 2018 issue

The Human Factor

How I learned the real meaning of dissent

Publisher's Note December 13, 2017, 7:25 pm

McCain’s War

“Although McCain participated in a morally unpardonable war in which the United Sates killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, one can’t help sympathizing with him in his reduced state.”

Publisher's Note November 10, 2017, 5:29 pm

Industrial Tourism

NAFTA is an investment contract that protects American and Canadian goods and interests against Mexican expropriation, regulation, and pestering by local authorities.

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner

Cost of a baby-stroller cleaning, with wheel detailing, at Tot Squad in New York City:

$119.99

Australian biologists trained monitor lizards not to eat cane toads.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today