Raphaël Enthoven on the elections in France: “Nothing would be more dangerous than such a man in power”

by time news

Raphaël Enthoven is a philosopher, TV and radio presenter. In his novel “Le Temps gagné” from 2020, the son of the renowned publisher and representative of “Nouvelle philosophy” Jean-Paul Enthoven settled accounts with the French “caviar left”. How does he see the outcome of the first round of the presidential election in France? What does it mean for France that the left once again missed the runoff? And how is it to be assessed that the duel between Macron and Le Pen from 2015 is now being repeated?

WORLD: Mr. Enthoven, victory or defeat – which interpretation does Emmanuel Macron have given Sunday’s election results?

Raphael Enthoven: Hard to say. Since 2017, France has only stood on a republican and liberal pillar, the other pillar, the patriotic and national, is weak. The result is that France has no sane opposition. Many people express their dissatisfaction by voting for whoever has objective flaws but better prospects. The main thing is to oppose the ruling power.

WORLD: Twelve candidates for the presidential elections. Is that a sign of a strong or weakening democracy?

Enthoven: Neither the one nor the other. The number of candidates is within the usual range. Incidentally, in France you need 500 sponsorships to be able to run for office. This is a small hurdle, but it also leads to injustice. Ultimately, however, it seems to me that it is a sign of good democratic health if a few completely absurd candidatures are ruled out as a result. The spectrum of candidates in all its diversity reflects the political landscape quite well.

also read

WORLD: Why are so many people disappointed with the incumbent president’s tenure?

Enthoven: In 2022, France is a great country: unemployment is falling, the economy is thriving. We survived the pandemic happily. We are experiencing the revival of the European idea, we are at the forefront in the fight against Islamism, we stand up to Putin, our republican model is the envy of everyone and, last but not least, we are soccer world champions. The people disappointed by this term have been wanting to be disappointed, no matter what, since 2017. The left, enraged at being stripped of power by one of the younger guard, wished for Macron’s failure and the victory of the far right to regain strength. The right, furious that so many of its ranks have defected to En Marche, dismiss Macron’s program as inadequate without being able to make itself heard. Politically, Macron has hastened the disappearance of the right-left divide, marginalizing these two age-old blocs.

WORLD: In his latest book, writer Michel Houellebecq describes a president who resembles Emmanuel Macron. He describes him as a “gifted liar”. Is there a grain of truth in that?

Enthoven: If you’re not a talented liar, you won’t win an election. This is the drama of politics, that the qualities required to seize power are the opposite of the qualities required to exercise it. I think the seducer who was elected in 2017 was also a great president because you can be both. As for Houellebecq, you only have to read Submission once. In this book, Houellebecq predicted that political Islam would come to power. Well, there you can see how unsuitable he is as a prophet. Houellebecq is a great writer but a terrible political analyst. His certainties stand in the way of clarity. Houellebecq’s readers are provided with cynicism and materialism in impressive books. But if you listen to Houellebecq, you will hear the vengeful sermons of a reactionary who fears death.

WORLD: Artists who are focused on their careers and don’t want to upset their audience have little desire to deal with the presidential candidates. Those who speak out openly support left-wing candidate Mélenchon. Why this reserved attitude towards Macron or the right-wing candidates?

Enthoven: Ever since Mélenchon posed as the only leftist, he is the candidate to support or risk public disgrace. It’s a shame, because he’s also a brutal, vengeful, lying demagogue who submits to Putin. Nothing would be more dangerous than such a man in power. Since that won’t happen, however, as a backer you enjoy the double advantage of pleasing the public on the one hand and being under no obligation on the other. As for Macron, that’s understandable: crossing borders is precisely what one associates with “artistry”. The safest way to be transgressive is to oppose the ruling power.

also read

“Nation, fatherland – one can say that calmly”: Barbara Cassin

WORLD: You recently published a book of interviews with Fabien Roussel, the Communist candidate. What attracted you to this project?

Enthoven: The strange sympathy the man aroused in me. As a leftist who clings to basic freedoms, I’ve always hated communism. How is it that I like the First Secretary of the Communists so much? Do I fear so much for freedom that I think I’m in the trenches with a communist? Because this communist defends science, universalism and the republic? Does such an unexpected unity stand up to the exposure of our differences? Is it the common opposition to an abdicating left and a virulent extreme right that makes us allies? And finally: how can one be a communist and a republican at the same time? These are questions we asked ourselves. We had a lot of fun.

WORLD: “Travailler plus (work more)” – why do the French have such a hard time with this slogan of the incumbent president?

Enthoven: Some The French have a hard time with this slogan. They see it as an alibi for exploitation, and they often rightly emphasize that not everyone works more to earn more, but that those who are already privileged are the beneficiaries of the work of others. Others see it as a perspective or as a matter of course: What better world than one in which everyone is rewarded for the work they do and not for the value that the market assigns to them?

WORLD: The right relies on the youth. What would attract young people about Zemmour?

Enthoven: Two things: First, the candidate himself behaves like an adolescent in every respect. He presents himself as the savior of France from mortal danger. For him, migrants are the eternal scapegoats for attacks and violence. He bangs and yells simplistic slogans – Nothing is more immature than all that! Adolescence is the age – which some never get beyond – when one believes that it is enough to resist to exist and that it is enough to simplify the world to subject it to our desires. Second, Zemmour flatters an identitarian tendency, expressed among youth as nationalism and the idea of ​​the republic’s “natives.” By making himself the defender of a France past and dreamed of, he appeals to the sense that an individual’s identity is not a product of chance, but a blessing and a value in itself. Nothing is more seductive for a teenager who would rather believe than think.

also read

PARIS, FRANCE: (FILES) - This picture taken in the 60s shows French novelist Francoise Sagan, who penned

WORLD: Marion Maréchal, Marine Le Pen’s niece and politician herself, told potential young voters: “You are the clear-thinking generation that cannot be fooled into believing that the great swap is a conspiracy theory.” quite a number of supporters. Even the philosopher Michel Onfray is not really against it. How can this phenomenon be explained?

Enthoven: Strictly speaking, the “Great Exchange” is not a conspiracy theory. Originally there was no talk of a conspiracy, but of a “determination” of a comprehensive population change. One should not take up the aspect of “conspiracy” in arguments, but operate with facts and figures and the concept of belonging. The talk of the “Great Exchange” radicalizes the feeling of decadence: Our time, so the thought, is less worthy than the previous one, more torn, less homogeneous. A mirage that exists in every era. Ever since Pericles, there have been people who say that “everything was better before” and who, like Michel Onfray, consider themselves particularly original when they say so.

WORLD: Emmanuel Macron called Marine Le Pen’s program “racist”. Anti-racist movements understand this differently than, for example, conservative voters. In what sense do you think he used that word?

Enthoven: Like feminism, anti-racism in France is divided between universalists – of which Macron is one – and identitarians, who believe they are fighting racism by reversing discrimination. When Macron speaks of racism in connection with Marine Le Pen, he points to the measures in her program that can be attributed to “national preference”, all of which conflict with the Republican constitution. When the Republic’s ‘indigenous’ denounce Marine Le Pen’s ‘racism’, they are attacking what they call a ‘white power’. This is something completely different. In terms of content, racism is not Marine Le Pen’s weak point, in contrast to her father. Their weak points are incompetence and laziness. I think we will see that on the day of the debate on the second ballot.

also read

French philosopher and party opponent Raphael Enthoven looks on as he delivers a speech during the

WORLD: How is there a “flag effect” for Macron in this election since the war in Ukraine?

Enthoven: For a few days, the president rose in the polls, but then the flash in the pan was over. It would be clear what a victory for Marine Le Pen would mean for the war in Ukraine: France would immediately adopt Putin’s narrative. Europe would eat out of a dictator’s hand.

WORLD: Marine Le Pen, who will face Emmanuel Macron in the second round, vowed to stand for “a new era”. What would that mean?

Enthoven: No idea. Marine Le Pen has been in politics for thirty years. And for no reason. She ran for the first time in 1993. And yet she insists on embodying a “new way”. As if defeat were a fountain of youth. Shortly before retirement, Ms. Le Pen is still presenting herself as a new face. This is blatant misrepresentation. Nothing new about her.

WORLD: Economist Thomas Piketty recently said that a strong social gesture is needed or Macron’s arrogance will cost him the election victory. Would a gesture be enough?

Enthoven: Thomas Piketty pretends that people act logically. You just have to give them something to stop them being dissatisfied. However, voters are freer, more unpredictable and act less logically than is often assumed. This is shown, for example, by the fact that the provision of ten billion euros did not appease the yellow vests. Gifts don’t make anger go away. Politics is about power. Politics is a question of balance of power. When you are in power, you have to know when to give in without appearing weak.

You may also like

Leave a Comment