"This was a demise foretold. Fatalistic in the face of a parliamentary impasse, Mr. Bayrou had, even before the debate began, invited his entourage to a 'convivial moment'..."

"... or farewell soirée, this evening. With four prime ministers in the past 20 months, and a fifth likely to be appointed now, the fall of French governments, once unusual, has become close to mundane.... 'Domination by military force, or domination by our creditors as a result of debts that drown us, produces the same result: The loss of our liberty,' Mr. Bayrou said, to opposition cries of 'It’s not the same thing!' His appeal fell on deaf ears. The far right of Marine Le Pen and a group of left and far-left parties, holding a clear majority between them, rejected the freezing of welfare payments, cutting two national holidays and other austerity measures proposed by Mr. Bayrou. Ms. Le Pen, true to her National Rally party’s doctrine, suggested cutting spending on immigrants instead...."

From "French Government Collapses, Again, Deepening Paralysis/Prime Minister François Bayrou failed a confidence vote aimed at breaking an impasse over the budget, adding more pressure on President Emmanuel Macron" (NYT).

"At one point, Le Pen whispered: 'Incredible.' She then abruptly left without warning, before her sentence had been handed down."

From "Marine Le Pen barred from running for French presidency in 2027/Far-right leader found guilty of embezzlement of European funds and immediately barred from running for office" (The Guardian).

What kind of "embezzlement" was this? Is it anything like what Elon Musk and DOGE are finding in the United States?

"A no-confidence vote in the French parliament on Wednesday has triggered the collapse of the government, plunging the country into political chaos..."

"... and stoking anxiety about the euro zone’s second biggest economy. Prime Minister Michel Barnier’s administration becomes the shortest-serving government in the modern French republic and the first in six decades to be toppled by a no-confidence vote. Although the motion was put forward by a leftwing alliance, the swing votes of Marine Le Pen and her far-right lawmakers, wielding unprecedented influence, were key to its passage.... In a fiery address during Wednesday’s debate, she said her decision to back a no-confidence vote was about stopping a budget that 'takes the French hostage, and particularly the most vulnerable, low-income pensioners, sick people, poor workers, the French considered too rich to be helped but not poor enough to escape the tax bludgeoning.'"

From "No-confidence vote topples French government, plunges country into chaos/The support of Marine Le Pen’s far-right lawmakers was key to the motion, which made this the shortest-serving administration in the modern French republic" (WaPo).

"French President Emmanuel Macron defeated far-right leader Marine Le Pen to win re-election Sunday, with projections as polls closed showing him winning 58% to 42%."

 Axios reports.

Greenwald on the meaning of Marine Le Pen's success.

NYT: "Le Pen won by a comfortable margin in the first round in places that have lost jobs to deindustrialization," where she denounced Macron's neoliberal "reforms."

The liberal-left doesn't want to grapple with why is happening, so they just call disobedient workers racist."

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 21, 2022

"President Emmanuel Macron will face Marine Le Pen, the French far-right leader, in the runoff of France’s presidential elections."

"With 92 percent of the ballots cast on Sunday counted, Mr. Macron, a centrist, was leading with about 27.4 percent of the vote to Ms. Le Pen’s 24.3 percent. Ms. Le Pen benefited from a late surge that reflected widespread disaffection over rising prices, security and immigration. With war raging in Ukraine and Western unity likely to be tested as the fighting continues, Ms. Le Pen’s strong performance demonstrated the enduring appeal of nationalist and xenophobic currents in Europe. Extreme parties of the right and left took some 51 percent of the vote, a clear sign of the extent of French anger and frustration."

The NYT reports.

"You fight for your country and they call you racist. But the days when those kind of insults work is over."

"You recall the evening of the American election, the traditional medias were shocked. They could never have believed that the Americans had finally voted in their own interests.... The establishment media are the dogs of the system. Every day, we become stronger and they become weaker. Let them call you racists, xenophobes or whatever else, wear these like a medal.... God bless America and vive la France."

So said Steve Bannon at a conference of Marine Le Pen’s National Front in Lille, France, The Guardian reports.

Marine Le Pen is estranged from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the party, but he's quoted in the article:

“I think Bannon’s OK … but it’s not exactly the definition of de-demonising [the party] and it’s a bit of a paradox given that Steve Bannon was supposed to be Trump’s most radical adviser,” he said. “But who knows. She [Marine] may end up coming round to my way of thinking.”

The Guardian says Jean-Marie was "thrown out of the party for xenophobic and racist comments," so I'm inferring that "my way of thinking" means leaning into the kind of rhetoric that got the party demonized in the first place.  Let them call you racists, xenophobes or whatever else, wear these like a medal...

AND: Here's yesterday's post about Steve Bannon's mission in Europe.

"We will yield nothing to anti-Zionism, because it is the reinvented form of anti-Semitism."

Said French President Emmanuel Macron, quoted in a NYT article about a Holocaust remembrance event, which took place at the Vélodrome d’Hiver, where 75 years ago, "France... organized" the roundup of 13,000 Jews, by the French, and "not a single German." The quotes are Macron's.

Some 77,000 French Jews died in Nazi concentration camps or extermination camps before the end of World War II, the vast majority of them at Auschwitz-Birkenau in occupied Poland.

For decades, many French have held on to the idea that their ancestors had been either victims or resisters of Nazis, or of the collaborationist regime that was set up in Vichy, France....

In April, Marine Le Pen, the far-right National Front leader whom Mr. Macron defeated in a May runoff election, declared that “France was not responsible for the Vel d’Hiv”...

Le Pen's explanation was the the Vichy government didn't count as "France."

Mr. Macron condemned that argument. “Admittedly Vichy was not all of the French,” he said, “but it was the government and the administration of France.”

Mr. Macron’s comments came during a period of resurgent anti-Semitism in France, fueled by right-wing nationalism and by fundamentalist Islam....

That's enough revolution for now.

ADDED: My post title is my own cheeky interpretation of Drudge's use of Napoleon to represent Macron. But what connections are people making, other than that Macron is young (39) as he takes office and so was Napoleon? Here's WaPo:

Not since Napoleon has anybody leapt to the top of French public life with such speed. Not since World War II has anybody won the French presidency without a political party and a parliamentary base....

He was, it is true, extraordinarily lucky (luck being the quality that Napoleon said he most preferred in his generals). He benefited both from the flameout of Socialist President François Hollande, who decided not even to contest the election, and from a surprise series of personal scandals that dragged down the center-right’s candidate, François Fillon.....

AND: My post title assumes it was Le Pen whose rise was revolutionary, but consider this from The Guardian:

The 39-year-old [Macron] has vowed to bring a youthful “revolution” to French politics but also to return to the historic tradition of a strong leader who can “embody the nation”. He believes that ever since King Louis XVI’s head was chopped off in the revolution, France has been constantly trying to compensate for the lack of a true leader figure who could personify France.

Doesn't that put him on the counter-revolutionary side?

Macron, a centrist political novice, who had never before run for election and until three years ago was unknown, believes he can fill the role of republican guide of the nation.

Macron’s first public gesture as president was to deliberately, solemnly make a long walk alone under spotlights across the Louvre’s Napoleon courtyard to Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, the European anthem. It was a carefully coordinated reference to the style of the late Socialist president François Mitterrand, who presented himself as a kind of republican, elected monarch.

Every new French leader wants to contrast the style of the president who went before. If the Socialist François Hollande – who was once Macron’s mentor – was a plodding “ordinary bloke” who described himself as “President Normal” and turned his own door handles at the Elysée instead of waiting for a butler, Macron wants to bring back what he styles as a lofty poise and distance.

But it seems (from this distance) that Le Pen was the contrast to Normal and that people chose more normal. Did they seek normal and get a lofty monarch?



I hadn't noticed before that the Ode to Joy was the European anthem. Is it odd for the new president to do his victory promenade to the anthem of Europe and not France?

Donald Trump did not walk out on election night to the sound of the U.S. national anthem, but of course the music was American. Do you remember what it was? It was not "I'm Proud to Be an American." Listen:



It's the soundtrack to the movie "Air Force One" (in which Harrison Ford played an action-movie-hero President of the United States). He left the stage to the sound of the Rolling Stone's "You Can't Always Get What You Want," which, I guess, was reaching out to those who were shocked and disappointed, though I'm sure many experienced the line "You can't always get what you want" as a taunt and rankled at "But if you try sometimes well you might find you get what you need." I can hear the anti-Trumpist crying This is not what we need.

By the way, Trump's use of the song did not prevent New York Magazine's David Marchese from ranking "You Can't Always Get What You Want" as #1 of all 373 Rolling Stones songs:

There’s formal wit (the boys’ choir and French-horn lines), Mick’s keen and clear-eyed lyrics (he hits on envy, hope, spite, cynicism), Keith’s foundational riffing, and the rhythm section’s subtly powerful groove.... Also, how perfectly Stones-y is it that the best the band says you can hope for is the possibility of getting what you want? “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is more moving and deep than anything else from the band’s classic years, more ambitious than anything that came before, and more authentic and fluid than anything that would come after. When the tempo picks up, it’s sexy, too. Look, maybe “Gimme Shelter” was the band’s true peak, and that song lives in the darkness the Stones knew so well, knew better than any other band, but I’m putting this song at the top. It lets a little light in. Lord knows we need it.

And here are the lyrics to "Ode to Joy" (written by Friedrich Schiller) in case you want to think about how weird they are for a political anthem (but be aware that the lyrics were not adopted as the European anthem, only the music).

"I really do believe that these populists are changing the character of the politics just by being there, so even mainstream candidates are having to respond to their agenda."

"You see fewer people talking about free trade. You see countries talking about industrial policy and protectionism. It's hard to defend immigrants almost any place in the world today.... The rise of nativism is having an impact on the politics, even if the candidates aren't winning."

Said Condoleezza Rice.

ADDED: Condi needs somebody to read her book.

"Marine Le Pen... quickly called the 39-year-old Macron to concede defeat after voters rejected her 'French-first' nationalism by a large margin."

"The result wasn't even close: Pollsters projected that Macron won 65 percent of the votes. Le Pen's projected 35 percent score was lower than her polling numbers earlier in the campaign...."

"After months of trying to move the political needle in favor of Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election, American far-right activists..."

"... threw their weight behind a hacking attack against her rival, Emmanuel Macron, hoping to cast doubt on an election that is pivotal to France and the wider world," according to the NYT.

Who are these weighty American righties and what are they doing with the hacking attack? The NYT says "American far-right groups" are "promoting the breach online." The NYT has articles about the hacking, but I guess these articles don't count as "promoting" it, so what are the "groups" doing other than repeating the news that Macron got hacked?

“It’s the anti-globalists trying to go global,” said Ben Nimmo, a senior fellow of the digital forensics research lab at the Atlantic Council, a think tank, who has studied the far right’s recent efforts against Mr. Macron and others in France. “There’s a feeling of trying to export the revolution.”

So they got Nimmo who's at a think tank, and he reports "a feeling."

[W]ithin hours after the hacked documents were made public, the hashtag #MacronLeaks began trending worldwide, aided by online far-right activists in the United States who have been trying to sway the French vote in favor of Ms. Le Pen.

I still don't understand how this is anything more than passing on the news story that there was a hack. The NYT and all the major media are doing that too.

Jack Posobiec, a journalist with the far-right news outlet The Rebel, was the first to use the hashtag with a link to the hacked documents online, which was then shared more widely by WikiLeaks....

So one person showed where to find the documents. 

While there is no evidence that the recent hack against Mr. Macron’s campaign was organized by this loosely connected group of extremist campaigners...

What loosely connected group? Does that refer to something earlier in the article? The sentence continues

... the American activists...

Who?

... have been regularly gathering on sites like 4Chan and Discord, which was previously used to coordinate support for Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign.

The name of websites where people communicate seems to stand in for details identifying the "activist" "groups" the article is talking about.

One popular tactic, according to experts, has been so-called Twitter raids, or efforts to hijack trending hashtag and topics on the social media site and inject far-right and anti-Macron propaganda.

That sounds nefarious — raids! inject! — but what does that say other than that social media exists and works in a certain way?

A week before the second round of the French election, for instance, online activists, many from the United States and other English-speaking countries, flooded Twitter with coordinated anti-Macron memes — online satirical photos with often-biting captions — carrying hashtags like #elysee2017 that were linked to the campaign. That included portraying him as a 21st-century equivalent of Marie Antoinette, the out-of-touch last queen of France, and other memes linked him to false allegations of an extramarital affair.

They used satire!  Wait... was it... The Piranha Brothers?!



ADDED: The "loosely connected group" just doesn't even seem to be a group at all. I can't see how it's anything more than the way social media operates to facilitate reading and writing. It's just free speech. I read this as the NYT agonizing over how MSM isn't filtering everything these days, and yet here it is, demonstrating how badly it filters. I'm giving this post my "fake news" tag. That just means the subject of "fake news" is an issue, not that I'm saying the NYT published a fake news article.

Do you think this NYT article should be called fake news?

Yes. Because it is fake news.

Yes. Because it's fake enough that the NYT deserves to be taunted with the aggravating pejorative.

No. Because it follows the norms of ethical journalism.

No. Because "fake news" is too strong a term. Criticize the article, but don't name-call.

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: Poll results:

"Forget Britain’s vote for Brexit. Forget President Trump’s November win. If Marine Le Pen somehow defeats Emmanuel Macron in France’s presidential runoff vote on Sunday..."

"... it may be the biggest electoral shock in the West so far this century" (WaPo).

A Le Pen victory “means the collapse of the E.U., because the E.U. without France doesn’t make any sense,” Gerard Araud, France’s ambassador in Washington, said in a conversation with Today’s WorldView earlier this year. “And it means the collapse of the euro and a financial crisis, which will have consequences throughout the world.”

I don't know how the shock-o-meter works or whether it matters, but I can see that there are 2 kinds of shock: 1. The shock of surprise when something you believed was very unlikely happens, 2. The shock at the extent of the impact of the event.

Araud's quote points up Type 2 Shock. But the "biggest electoral shock" characterization applies even more to Type 1 shock, since Macron is 20 points ahead in the polls. But:

Reports suggest that many disaffected French voters across the political spectrum may abstain. Those voters already rejected France’s traditional conservative and center-left parties amid a tidal wave of public dissatisfaction. Macron’s boosters see his independent movement — known by its slogan “En Marche,” or “Onward” — as an opportunity to rejuvenate the country with a new “radical centrism.” His critics, principally Le Pen, but also some on the left, cast the former banker as an out-of-touch member of the financial elite beholden to tired neo-liberal dogma....

A poll this week found that some 65 percent of [those who voted for the leftist Mélenchon in the first round] would not vote for the centrist candidate, preferring to spoil their ballots or not turn up at all.

Now, a really weird thing that happened is Barack Obama endorsed Macron!



Should one country's leader try to influence a presidential election in another country? After all the talk about Putin's (never spoken) preference in the American election, we get America's ex-President putting out a video endorsement of a candidate in the French election? Is that right, and, more importantly, is that what the French people are looking for as they make their decision? Obama says the French election "matters to the entire world," but the extent to which France should lean into globalism seems to lie at the core of the decision to be made. I can't peer into the mind of the French, but I can wonder if Obama's intrusion won't backfire, adding to the very anxieties that Le Pen has emphasized, that France needs to remain French, the French version of Trump's America first.

ADDED: A new poll has Macron at 62% and Le Pen at 38%, and a separate poll has 25% abstaining. Do the math under the assumption that all the abstentions are in the Macron 62%. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under that hypothetical, Macron loses: He ends up with 49.3% percent. It's strange that the poll that's getting reported has Macron and Le Pen's numbers adding up to 100% when it's obvious that there are some abstentions.

"Mr Macron... I see you're trying to play the teacher and pupil with me. But as far as I'm concerned it's not particularly my thing."

Just one of the insults from last night's French presidential debate. That one came from Marine Le Pen and refers to Macron's marriage to a woman 24 years older than he is and who was his drama teacher when he was 15.

Le Pen had a better line: "I'll tell you what's going to happen, Mr Macron. Either way France will be led by a woman, it'll be either me or Mrs Merkel."

His best line seems to have been: "But you're a product of the system you condemn because you live off it and you're its parasite."

Marine Le Pen uses that "absurd?!" argument I recommended.

I'm not saying Marine Le Pen's people read my blog. I'm just saying that I offered the argument:

I thought of this — absurd?! — argument in her favor: She purposely plagiarized because it would (and did) cause her antagonists to repeat words that have a meaning that influences people to vote for her.

Hmm. Let's say her speechwriters just screwed up. What do you think of using my absurd theory as rhetoric to cover up what was only embarrassing mistake? Now, caught, she could say: Of course, I used Fillon's words. He is absolutely right, but you cannot vote for Fillon now. You can only vote for me or Macron. I honor what Fillon said. I could not think of more perfect words. And now my opponents — who are also Fillon's opponents, believe me — are criticizing me for using those words, but listen to those words! They are the correct words! France is a set of values and principles transmitted from generation to generation, as passwords. It is a voice, an extraordinary, singular voice that speaks to all the peoples of the universe....

And she used it:

And Le Pen added to the intrigue later Tuesday, claiming in a television interview that the plagiarised passages had been deliberately used, likely in an effort to curry favour with Fillon supporters.

"We have in part the same vision of France as voters for Francois Fillon, of its greatness, the role that it must play in the world," Le Pen, a 48-year-old former lawyer, said.

"If we hadn't have done it, you wouldn't have spoken about it," she said of the apparent ploy. "We know you so well, we know how it works."

Notice that she used both aspects of the argument I suggested: 1. That it honors Fillon and connects her to him, and 2. That it was intended and worked as a device to get the media to carry the message.

IN THE COMMENTS: antiphone said:

It's analogous to sampling in music.She appropriated parts of his work to create a new piece. When you hear the speeches side by side it's clear that it was meant to be recognized. check it out here:

I absolutely agree with you. The cadence and phrasing are so similar that it takes the place of larding in "As Francois Fillon said." It reminded me of that theater piece with a male actor playing Hillary Clinton and a female playing Trump reenacting one of the debates. Look at how in rehearsal, the actors did their lines with the video of the original playing:



The 2 voices match in the same way in the Fillon/Le Pen side-by-side video.

"French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has been accused of plagiarising defeated rival François Fillon in a speech she delivered on Monday."

BBC reports:

Several sections of her speech [on Monday] in Villepinte, north of Paris, appear to repeat almost word-for-word comments Mr Fillon made in an address on 15 April...

• Mr Fillon's speech: "Then there is the Rhine frontier, the most open, the most dangerous, also the most promising - a Germanic world we have been so often in conflict with and with which we will yet co-operate in so many ways" Ms Le Pen's speech: "Then there is the Rhine frontier, the most open, also the most promising - a Germanic world we will yet co-operate with in so many ways, as long as we regain the relationship of allies and not of subjects"

• Both speeches refer to "waiting lists for the Alliance Française in Shanghai, Tokyo, or Mexico, for the French secondary school in Rabat or Rome"

• Both speeches quote World War One PM Georges Clemenceau, saying: "Once a soldier of God, and now a soldier of Liberty, France will always be the soldier of the ideal"

• Mr Fillon's speech: "France, as I have said, is a history, it is a geography, but it is also a set of values ​​and principles transmitted from generation to generation, as passwords. It is finally a singular voice addressed to all the peoples of the universe" Ms Le Pen's speech: "France is also a set of values and principles transmitted from generation to generation, as passwords. And then it is a voice, an extraordinary, singular voice that speaks to all the peoples of the universe"

I wonder if there is some earlier source that both cribbed from. You'd think she'd be more careful. I thought of this — absurd?! — argument in her favor: She purposely plagiarized because it would (and did) cause her antagonists to repeat words that have a meaning that influences people to vote for her.

Hmm. Let's say her speechwriters just screwed up. What do you think of using my absurd theory as rhetoric to cover up what was only embarrassing mistake? Now, caught, she could say: Of course, I used Fillon's words. He is absolutely right, but you cannot vote for Fillon now. You can only vote for me or Macron. I honor what Fillon said. I could not think of more perfect words. And now my opponents — who are also Fillon's opponents, believe me — are criticizing me for using those words, but listen to those words! They are the correct words! France is a set of values and principles transmitted from generation to generation, as passwords. It is a voice, an extraordinary, singular voice that speaks to all the peoples of the universe....

"Chaos erupted on the streets of Paris as a May Day workers' march saw riots break-out in protest against Marine Le Pen.."

The Mirror reports.

I can't believe this sort of thing doesn't help Le Pen. That's a problem with protests. If they get out of hand, they help the other side. 

"The country Mr Macron wants is no longer France; it's a space, a wasteland, a trading room where there are only consumers and producers."

Said Marine Le Pen, quoted in a Daily Express article titled "Macron PLUMMETS in the polls as Marine Le Pen enjoys boost a WEEK AWAY from election vote/EMMANUEL Macron’s lead over Marine Le Pen has taken a heavy hit as France prepares to vote in the final round of the election on Sunday."

The actual poll numbers reported under that sensationalistic headline are: Macron, 61%, Le Pen, 33%.

ADDED: 61% to 33% still seems so huge, but how does it compare to the notoriously wrong polls that preceded the U.S. presidential election and the Brexit vote? The polls on Brexit showed 55%-45% — a 10 point lead for the side that ultimately lost. In the American election, you have to go state by state, and this image is helpful:



Basically, you could say that in the states that tipped the Electoral College to Trump, Hillary looked as though she was up by about 0.6 to 5.4. So, polls may have a bad reputation these days, but they're not so bad that a 28 point gap looks piddling. And yet, the French election just entered the final run-off with 2 candidates, so maybe the numbers are especially volatile. But even if they are, Le Pen only gained 6 points in the last week and there's only one more week to go.

"Does Le Pen have a chance of winning French presidency?"

"Since his impressive first-round victory on Sunday, Mr Macron is still at least 20 points ahead, which sounds an unassailable lead.... So what could go wrong for him?"

All she needs is to advance a little more in the polls, and this is how she could do it.

"If she gets 42% of the vote, which isn't impossible, and Macron gets 58%, normally she loses the election," physicist and Sciences Po political expert Serge Galam told RMC radio. "But if 90% of people who said they would vote for Le Pen do it, and at the same time only 65% of people who declared they would vote for Macron actually do it, then it's Marine Le Pen who wins the election with a score of 50.07%."

Under Serge Galam's mathematical formula, he gives three examples of how Marine Le Pen can win, where she is candidate "A turnout x" and Emmanuel Macron is "B turnout y" with a Turnout (T). He calls this model "differentiated abstention."

"Marine Le Pen Is In A Much Deeper Hole Than Trump Ever Was."

Writes Nate Silver. 

Are we still hanging on the wisdom of the Nate Silver? The headline suggests he knows he has a credibility problem. (This time he really means it.) But let's look beyond the headline. There's a lot of stuff crunched over there — that's the confidence-building methodology — and here's how it ends:

There’s still some uncertainty about the outcome.... Although the polls haven’t systematically underestimated nationalist and right-wing parties, they also haven’t been all that accurate in pinning down their support, having come in both high and low in different elections. In cases since 2012 where the right-wing party polled at 25 percent or more, the polls missed the party’s actual support by an average of 3.6 percent of the vote. That translates to a true margin of error (or 95 percent confidence interval) of about plus or minus 9 percentage points. And because any vote that Le Pen gets is one that Macron won’t get, the margin of error for the gap between Le Pen and Macron is twice as large, or about 18 percentage points.

An 18-point margin of error is huge! But it still isn’t enough when you’re 26 points behind, as Le Pen is against Macron.... She could beat her polls by as much as Trump and Brexit combined and still lose to Macron by almost 20 points.

That's excitingly put and it sounds strong. As I said, confidence-building. But we're all skeptical now, aren't we? 

This was the final prediction, published on America's Election Day, at Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight: