This thought by Leo Tolstoy perfectly summarizes what current political policy consists of, and the why and how of what they call “democracy”: the guarantee for the powerful to maintain power.
A distortion of the meaning of a word which was further illustrated in an article by Francis Fukuyama published in the Financial Times for which ” the re-election of Donald Trump represents a decisive rejection of liberalism “. Tribune which I did not miss reply with a tweet to that effect :
« We should probably redefine his definition of liberalism, including his definition of freedom. According to his definition, we have seen civil liberties regress in OECD countries due to policies that are anything but liberal, because they are based on false premises. It’s the same as transparency. Have liberal governments been transparent with their citizens? They claim to be, but too often they have made decisions outside the public eye and away from public interests. Liberalism has taken over years of dogma and propaganda based on faulty science. Public opinion is therefore influenced by years of information pollution.
It is therefore no coincidence that, in all political alignments, the strategy adopted by French politicians, and not only, is essentially based on the thought of Tolstoy, the Macronists in particular, Emmanuel Macron in the lead. This is also the reason why, when addressing the French, in most cases he uses childish language combined with a misappropriation of the meaning of words. The period of the “covid crisis” was the most obvious example of this. Remember, for example, that it is ” Wash your hands with soap! »
And it is not only for their speeches and political programs (and their promotion) that Macronists opt for this strategy. They also do it with national culture and education.
In this regard, usually, when Emmanuel Macron utters one of these completely lunar tirades, with which he has honored us, for seven years, in the form of analyzes on this or that eminently serious topic pronounced in public by the Head of State, it seems that we can give him the credit for pretending to be an imbecile, adhering to the saying with talent” The real smart person is the one everyone takes for an imbecile », which Raymond Devos portrayed in his sketch entitled “ I’m an idiot! », with him the fabulous talent that no one can validly deny him.
Here are the words:
« I recently met a gentleman who prided himself on being an imbecile.
He said: “I’m an imbecile! I’m an idiot! » I told him: “Sir… it’s easy to say!” Anyone can say “I’m an idiot!” » We have to prove it! » He told me: “I can!” »
Well, he showed me the proof of his imbecility with such intelligence and subtlety,
that I wonder if he hadn’t taken me for an imbecile. »
However, I have a doubt. Also a big doubt. I’ve always had it, I want to make it clear. But a few days ago an event occurred this character of doubt quickly changed to that of almost absolute certainty in this regard mind-boggling speech that Emmanuel Macron offered himself in Hungary at the summit of the European political
community, regarding the strategy that the European Union will have to adopt, with the return of Donald Trump to the White House, to protect itself from the “ultra-protectionist” policy of Joe Biden’s successor promised to take a leading role, particularly towards European Union countries and China.
Listen instead:
« The world is made up of herbivores and carnivores.
If we decide to remain herbivores, the carnivores will win. And we will be a market for them. And uh… I think it wouldn’t hurt to at least choose to be omnivorous.
I don’t want to be aggressive, I just want people to know how to defend themselves on each of these topics.
But I don’t want to leave Europe as a formidable theater inhabited by herbivores, which the carnivores, according to their agenda, will come to devour. Suppose… that. AS. »
Surprising. Has the president lost the meaning of words and concepts in the performance of his duties? He did it Completely broken bolts, completely loosened what do young people say? To form an opinion, just look at the literally shocked and amazed faces of the people behind him, visibly embarrassed. Embarrassed for him, the ridiculousness of which he covers himself, given the context (a meeting between heads of state), and the function in which Emmanuel Macron brings out this metaphor of the two bullets (2), to his fellow state political leaders.
The most pathetic thing is that he obviously seems very proud of himself right now. For a head of state, using such a metaphor in such circumstances seems so inappropriate that a specialist in political communication did not hesitate to declare that “it was stupidity, absurd to the highest degree and out of context, worthy of a François Tirata of the sprockets! » (3)
Clearly, the more time passes, the more Emmanuel Macron pushes us to the conclusion that his presidency consists, as far as his public relations are concerned, in the fact that: “any political meeting he attends is reduced to a spectacle like a conference dinner”. descendants of whom he would have been the main guest »
One more reason to take the time to read the “J’Accuse” published on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of France-Soir to decide who to invite to dinner next Wednesday!
1) “Nazebroque: old-fashioned, uninteresting, mediocre. »
2) “at two cents” I could have said yes, if Gabriel Attal had still been his prime minister in office. In a future editorial I will explain why I told you this today.
3) François Pignon is played by Jacques Villeret in Le Diner de Cons.
Interview: Time.news Editor Meets Political Expert on Modern Democracy
Time.news Editor: Welcome, and thank you for joining us today. We’re diving into the complex landscape of modern democracy and political communication, using insights inspired by some thought-provoking commentary from figures like Leo Tolstoy and Francis Fukuyama. To start, what do you think of Tolstoy’s assertion that current political policies serve more to maintain power for the few rather than truly embodying democratic values?
Political Expert: Thank you for having me. Tolstoy’s perspective raises critical questions about democracy today. When democracy becomes a tool rather than a principle, we see a power shift that favors the elite. This isn’t just a theoretical concern; it’s reflected in political rhetoric and policy decisions that prioritize power retention over genuine representation.
Time.news Editor: That leads us to Fukuyama’s claim that the re-election of someone like Donald Trump signifies a rejection of liberalism. How do you interpret that in today’s political context?
Political Expert: Fukuyama’s argument invites us to reconsider the contours of liberalism itself. If liberal values are fundamentally about transparency and civil liberties, as he suggests, we must evaluate whether governments claiming to uphold these values are genuinely transparent. For many voters disillusioned with conventional liberalism, it appears these ideals have been compromised, which is why they might gravitate towards populist figures who promise change.
Time.news Editor: Fascinating. You mentioned transparency, and I’m curious about the accusation that many liberal governments operate outside the public eye. Could you elaborate on that?
Political Expert: Certainly. The idea that liberal governments are opaque contradicts the foundational promise of democracy. Many citizens feel sidelined when policies are made without adequate public discourse. This is particularly evident in crises like the COVID-19 pandemic when government messaging often relied on oversimplified or even alarmist rhetoric, potentially undermining the trust required in a democratic society.
Time.news Editor: Speaking of rhetoric, let’s discuss Emmanuel Macron’s communication style. Some critics argue he often resorts to condescending or overly simplistic language, sometimes lacking depth. How do you see this impacting public perception?
Political Expert: Macron’s approach, using childlike language while addressing serious matters, is striking. It can be interpreted in various ways: as an attempt to connect with the populace or as a sign of intellectual disengagement. However, it risks infantilizing complex issues, which can alienate citizens who yearn for more profound dialogue about their concerns. The metaphor of “herbivores and carnivores” that he employed recently is a prime example. It’s memorable but, in a serious political context, it might underplay the complexities of global relations and sound policy-making.
Time.news Editor: What do you think the reaction of the public and international leaders is to metaphors like this? There’s the notion of embarrassment among peers, as you hinted earlier.
Political Expert: Yes, exactly. Such comments can create tangible discomfort in diplomatic settings. The embarrassment evident in the expressions of onlookers during Macron’s speeches indicates a disconnect. Leaders expect a certain level of gravitas and clarity in discussions. When metaphors are misaligned with geopolitical reality, they can lead to a loss of credibility, not only for the individual but for their nation on the global stage.
Time.news Editor: With that in mind, how can leaders adapt their communication to align more closely with democratic ideals and restore public trust?
Political Expert: Leaders must embrace clarity and sincerity in their communication. This involves acknowledging the complexities and challenges faced by citizens rather than oversimplifying issues. Engaging with the public in nuanced dialogue and being open about governmental processes can endorse genuine transparency. Ultimately, they must remember that being in touch with the populace means respecting their intelligence and capacity for understanding complex matters.
Time.news Editor: Thank you for sharing these insights. In these times, as political polarization seems rife, your reflections on communication and democratic values provide a crucial perspective on how we might navigate these challenges in the future.
Political Expert: It’s been a pleasure discussing these important issues. Political communication plays a pivotal role in shaping the democratic landscape we live in today. Engaging earnestly with citizens is vital for the future of democracy itself. Thank you for having me.
Time.news Editor: Thank you again, and we look forward to future discussions on these pressing topics!
