Publisher's Note — May 5, 2017, 11:43 am

Fantasy Beats Reality

The French election
A version of this column originally ran in Le Devoir on May 1, 2017. Translated from the French by John Cullen.

In an article that appeared in Le Monde on April 18, two days before the terrorist attack on the Champs-Élysées and five days before the first round of the presidential election in France, the left-wing philosopher Alain Badiou made an appropriate comment on the “electoral ritual” and the effect of terrorism: “Fear is a bad advisor.” Exactly. Fear has a tendency to conjure up imaginary bad guys, who can lead even the most reasonable citizens to make bad choices.

On the other hand, can a movie with bad characters, even though they’re made-up, offer good advice at election time? Given the widespread cynicism regarding the second round, which presents a bad choice – either the authoritarian extreme right of Marine Le Pen or the neoliberalism of Emmanuel Macron – would it be so farfetched to look for truth in fiction rather than to face political reality?

I’m thinking about the 1961 film The President, directed by Henri Verneuil and adapted from a novel by Georges Simenon. I was until recently unaware of the existence of this film, but having been invited by the Alliance Française of New York to introduce it as part of a series about French politics – “Liberté, Égalité, Fantaisie” – I am now convinced that the best candidate in the second round would be, without a doubt, Simenon’s fictional President of the Council, Émile Beaufort, played in the film by the great Jean Gabin. I also think that the movie’s brilliant screenwriter, the late Michel Audiard, would be an effective speechwriter for the two real candidates.

The film deals with the career of a man for whom politics has been a profession – these days, it’s a vocation held in great contempt – and focuses particularly on his rivalry with a sophisticated opportunist by the name of Philippe Chalamont, played by Bernard Blier. Of course, ambition and raw greed play large parts, and so does personal score-settling. As popular entertainment, the film is exciting, and it ends with a nice surprise, but what’s most important is how pertinent its political material remains, despite a distance of fifty-six years, to the issues of Europe and French sovereignty in the current debate between the two run-off candidates.

As the film begins, Émile Beaufort is living in retirement on his property in Normandy, describing himself to a visitor as “a mixture of anarchist and conservative, in proportions yet to be determined.” But in the final analysis, he’s not so anarchist as all that, for in the scenes that take place in the past, a younger Beaufort is shown advocating for a federated Europe. His former cabinet secretary, Chalamont, is also officially pro-Europe, but his lack of sincerity is obvious. At a debate in the National Assembly on legislation that would enroll France in a “customs union” in preparation for the eventual creation of a “United States” of Europe, Chalamont, who is of the opposition party, talks like a Le Pen-style demagogue. “It was not for a Europe without borders that 1,500,000 Frenchmen fell, and they among the best,” he thunders from the rostrum. He scorns the “obsolete pacifist dreams of Geneva and Locarno,” whatever the “fine sentiments” of the government led by Beaufort might be. Beaufort, for his part, scorns Chalamont’s pretensions: “At the time of Verdun, Monsieur Chalamont was ten years old.… Having been present in the theater of operations, I cannot pretend to the same objectivity.” And the nail in the coffin: “Whenever some mischief is afoot, there’s always a republic that must be saved.”

Nevertheless, Beaufort shouldn’t be seen as a Macron-like liberal globalist, no more than Chalamont should be seen as a Le Pen nationalist ideologue. The core of the conflict is the dispute between a man of principle, faithful to the ideal of an upright, independent France, and a wheeler-dealer who’s always looking to make a profit from politics – “More ambitious for yourself than for your country,” as Beaufort derides him. The origin of their clash lies in a devaluation of the franc organized in secret by Beaufort precisely to prevent speculators from exploiting the information. Chalamont nevertheless informs his banker father-in-law of the planned devaluation, and now Beaufort will have his revenge.

A fine cinematic plot. But Beaufort’s justification for the devaluation is just as striking: “We had to choose, and choose fast, between the protection of capital and the protection of labor.…I’m well aware that this devaluation will reduce by a third the income of ordinary middle-class people, but I deem it to be in the national interest.” An idea of genius, that old national interest. Today, without a national currency and facing an economically dominant Germany, the French government no longer has the choice of boosting exports with a similar monetary policy. So as a supporter of Europe without the euro, I see a way out of my electoral dilemma. Instead of abstaining on May 7, as Alain Badiou recommends, I’ll cast my vote for Émile Beaufort.

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
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
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Amount Arizona’s Red Feather Lodge offered to pay to reopen the Grand Canyon during the 2013 government shutdown:

$25,000

A Brazilian cat gave birth to a dog.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

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