Are French Berners About to Win Election for Mary LePen?
The lesser of two evils is still evil. This was the leftist rallying cry that gave us Hitler in 1932, Nixon, in 1968, and Trump in 2016.
Are the French really going down this same road?
“A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Jean-Luc Mélenchon.”
“In the latest plot twist in France’s highly contentious presidential election, Mélenchon — an outspoken 65-year-old leftist who often appears on the campaign trail via hologram and who has pitched his proposal to nationalize France’s biggest banks and renegotiate its relationship with the European Union via free Internet games and YouTube videos — is now soaring in the polls. With less than two weeks before the election, his meteoric and unexpected rise is already sending jitters through financial markets and shock waves through an increasingly anxious electorate.”
“In a shocking turn of events, Mélenchon is in third place — behind Macron and Le Pen but ahead of François Fillon, the centrist conservative whose campaign has suffered in the wake of a public spending scandal. If Mélenchon does not qualify for the second and final round, which polls still suggest he will not, his supporters say they are not sure whom they will support instead — or even whether they will vote.”
“Of course I will vote for whomever is not the extreme right,” said Eva Alain, 20, an audiovisual student. “But if it’s Fillon, it’s impossible, and if it’s Macron, it’s difficult.”
Why is it difficult to support Macron?
Some of his policies are interesting, others I wouldn’t support if I were French.
“What Mélenchon detests in this style of government is its monarchical presidency — designed for de Gaulle himself — which can dissolve parliament at will and is subject to few checks and balances. Mélenchon has pledged to found what he calls the “Sixth Republic,” a vision that would “take us out of this presidential regime, notably with proportionality in all elections.”
“It is an idea that resonates widely — even among those who do not necessarily support Mélenchon’s other more radical proposals, including taking France out of NATO and imposing a 100 percent tax on all income earned over 400,000 euros ($425,000).”
What it would mean to change from the currently presidential system is interesting. But, the immediate necessity is to defeat LePen. This was the same fallacy that Trump was able to capitalize. Too many Berners were too tenderhearted to admit that even though Bernie was their first choice, Hillary should have been their clear second best choice.
Now the French Berners are saying they can’t choose between Marcron and LePen? Remember, too, that Putin is working this election just like he did ours. He’s all in for LePen. Certainly the appearance of a purist Left wing candidate is very good news for him-and Trump who also supports LePen.
This is right out of the Nixon-Roger Stone playbook:
“I don’t think Stone ever says what policy he is for in this memoir, and he might well consider a focus on policy a distraction. There is only winning and losing an election, and five methods for achieving a victory recur again and again in races that Stone is involved with, four methods that create a mirror maze of confusion, misdirection, and elimination. The first is through association, by having a candidate receive an endorsement from a person or group who potential supporters of the candidate are predisposed to view as an opponent, or through association with something unquestionably malevolent made via protesters, pamphlets, or other means funded by Stone’s campaign but without any fingerprints. The second is by having a group, funded by allied interests, oppose a candidate or policy due to some larger moral principle that everyone can agree on – the issue is not candidate A versus B, but opposition to crime, gambling, or child abuse. The third is the smear, saying your opponent is corrupt, weak, racist, a rapist, a murderer, a pedophile, always helpfully done not through you, the opponent on which this tar might stick, but through a phantom proxy. This last is used very, very often by Stone. The fourth, and one of the most effective, is through fragmentation of the vote. There is, say, overwhelming support for candidate A, who will raise the minimum wage, versus candidate B, who won’t. You split this overwhelming vote by funding another candidate, who wants to raise the minimum wage even higher, and who chastises candidate A for compromising their principles and being beholden to business interests for not asking for a higher wage. Through a vote split, candidate B, the one who says he believes the condition of workers must be improved, but not through easy sounding solutions like a higher minimum wage, scores a victory. At the same time, you make great efforts to keep the votes for your own candidate or issue from being fragmented. The fifth is vote suppression, of black and latino voters, who tend to poll democrat. The first four have been employed in elections that Stone has been involved in, with Stone often taking credit. The fifth has been employed alongside Stone’s efforts, though perhaps without the collusion of Stone.”
Actually, in this past election Stone may have also been involved with five in his Breitbart article that claimed the vote would be rigged against Trump. He had tweeted the article to Guccifer 2.0 who later claimed to have hacked the election system as an ‘election observer.’
But voter fragmentation is as noted in the quote above, is one of the most effective strategies. Jean-Luc Mélenchon fits the bill.
We saw this same thing in the US election by the way.
1. Hillary said raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.
2. Bernie said it must be $15, that $12 was a copout-despite the fact that the current federal MW is $7.25. A $12 MW would have been a 79% increase over current law. But this was dismissed as not serious. Then at the convention she negotiated with Bernie and agreed to $15. But the Berners refused even then to take yes for an answer.
3. Trump said wages are too high. He did later say he doesn’t know how people live on $7.25. Then he said he’d be for a higher MW-but only at the state level. He didn’t believe there should be any federal MW. Ie, he framed this as being ok with a higher MW but was actually saying he thinks the federal MW should be abolished.
4. Punchline: Trump won. The $7.25 MW is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Well played Berners.
If France going down this same voter fragmentation rabbit hole?
P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.