@Freddie deBoer: From my classical liberal perspective, Persuasion tends to run center-left. I value it because it is one of a few forums with an open-ness and willingness to engage constructively with different perspectives, which is extremely rare these days.
This essay does not exactly equate leftists and fascists, but it would have a fair point if it did. Look at all the topics where their viewpoints currently align: soft on Russian neo-imperialism, soft on anti-Semitism, down on Nato, big on expansive government.... To me, Big Government bullies who want to take away our rights and run everything are all of the same ilk, even though they might differ slightly about which rights they want to take away. Distinguishing between the types is like debating whether to call shit excrement or feces. You don't want to step in it either way.
France is now at the highest govt. spending to GDP ratio in the OECD, at ~56% (China is only at ~35%). So what's your idea of balance: a leftist who argues that it should be 80% or 90%?
Not surprised Melenchon is autocratic himself. It comes with the territory. There is, BTW, a horseshoe vision of politics where fascist and far left idea can almost converge.
Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I've gathered from what little I've read about events in 21st-century France that its ethnic-minority population is mostly Islamic. The presence of a large Muslim minority in a country like France is problematic because it is a basic tenet of their religion that society should be governed in accordance with Islamic law, which is fundamentally at odds with the Enlightenment ideals that underpin the government and laws of France and every other Western democracy. The hope that this problem will somehow be solved through intermarriage seems overly optimistic to me -- particularly if, as seems likely, the rate of reproduction among the non-Islamic French population is well below replacement level and that among the Islamic minority is substantially higher.
I agree with much of this except I think it’s hard to deduce that the French have chosen Melenchon’s LFI to lead them.
Three points: 1. The new parliament is roughly divided into thirds between the far left, the far right, and the center. No one group as a majority, and the leftist group is a very heterodox coalition that is not really controlled by Melenchon. I would expect there to be an attempt to woo the more moderate Socialist group away from the New Popular Front to form a government with the centrists and the moderate right. Who knows if it will be possible? But there aren’t enough votes on the left to form a government without some centrists.
2. Macron, who you deprecate as past his sell-by date, has greatly strengthened France’s economy, reducing unemployment to record lows, making needed entitlement cuts, and making France one of Europe’s most business-friendly countries. Both the far left and far right want to reverse all this with populist budget-breaking proposals. The only good thing about this election is that neither will be easily empowered to dismantle his achievements.
3. The wildly impractical economic plans of the left, and only slightly less ridiculous program of the far right, are probably not possible. Both want to create huge new spending projects using essentially borrowed money. But France’s debt is already high. Macron has just been able to keep bond rates feasible, but lenders are unlikely to provide the funds for someone like Melenchon’s absurd agenda. Rates would go sky high and make it impossible, and confiscating large amounts from the wealthy and middle classes would not be sufficient. In short, the LFI agenda is a pipe dream that won’t happen.
To answer the repeated question of why I find Persuasion so frustrating, and so emblematic of this whole world of right-wing publications that for whatever reason brand as centrist, here you go - an essay that literally has the conclusion "leftists and fascists are the same."
If you think I'm wrong, PUBLISH AN ESSAY BY A FRENCH FAR LEFTIST THAT EXPRESSES AS UNRESERVEDLY PRO-LEFT SENTIMENT AS THE ANTI-LEFT SENTIMENT IN THIS PIECE.
"The further left has always had its share of counter-establishment institutions. The Nation, after all, is one of the oldest magazines in the country, and some academic disciplines have long been at the forefront of leftist thought. But the left, too, has of late succeeded in building a more cohesive network of fighting institutions; as universities have become much more progressive, movements like the Democratic Socialists of America have awakened from decades of peaceful slumber, and publications like Jacobin have infused the movement with fresh intellectual energy.
Five or ten years ago, our potted history might have concluded here. Ideological movements from conservative to libertarian to leftist had fighting institutions of their own. Though philosophical liberals did not have a comparable home, they could confidently express their views within mainstream institutions.
Persuasion is not a leftist publication, it's a liberal one. So you'd expect to see articles in it arguing against the left, and not articles defending the left. It's also not intended to give "all sides" of opinion, but rather be a liberal complement to established partisan leftist, libertarian, conservative publications, etc.
Sure it's "right" compared to leftist publications, but that's true of literally every opinion publication that isn't leftist. It's weird how you're putting everything into two buckets of "left" versus "right wing."
Furthermore, the essay is not attacking the left as a whole, not even all the parties within the New Popular Front coalition. The writer is attacking Melenchon and his LFI. I have seen several interviews with leaders of, for example, the Greens over the course of the campaign who have insisted that Melenchon does not speak for them and they do not see him as the leader of their bloc, even if the media like to portray him as such.
Nonetheless. LFI s clearly the senior party in the coalition and Melenchon its best known, most charismatic, and most controversial, figure. To what extent he woll be able to dominate the new National Assembly is very much an open question.
To call it Persuasion right-wing is disingenuous at best. To be leftist is not to be liberal. Yascha is trying to do what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. did after World War II, which is to hold the liberal center. Leftists in California are forcing professors to incorporate DEI into every discipline. Leftists are trying to force everyone to write DEI statements despite the precedent of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Loyalty oaths and forced statements are anathema to liberals, but heartwarming to Fascists.
Most of all, you deliberately ignore the central arguments of this excellent and perspicacious essay. Melenchon is indistinguishable from Chavez. He is an authoritarian and hardened antisemite. The leftist coalition in France has stifled moderation and ability while elevating extremism.
The hard right and the hard left are anti-liberal. They use identical tactics, such as the suppression of the liberty of one’s conscience and the right to speak freely. If sticking your head out of the ideological echo chamber causes you to panic, then you need to ask yourself if you are in the Melenchon/Chavez camp or with those who wish to restore the post-war liberal consensus.
While attempting to follow the chaos of French politics, it helps to remember that France is in its fifth republic while during the same time period the US is working (most of us hope) on a long-term project to improve its first.
In the late middle-ages, the French coined the term "perfidious Albion", which now has a certain irony to it.
@Freddie deBoer: From my classical liberal perspective, Persuasion tends to run center-left. I value it because it is one of a few forums with an open-ness and willingness to engage constructively with different perspectives, which is extremely rare these days.
This essay does not exactly equate leftists and fascists, but it would have a fair point if it did. Look at all the topics where their viewpoints currently align: soft on Russian neo-imperialism, soft on anti-Semitism, down on Nato, big on expansive government.... To me, Big Government bullies who want to take away our rights and run everything are all of the same ilk, even though they might differ slightly about which rights they want to take away. Distinguishing between the types is like debating whether to call shit excrement or feces. You don't want to step in it either way.
France is now at the highest govt. spending to GDP ratio in the OECD, at ~56% (China is only at ~35%). So what's your idea of balance: a leftist who argues that it should be 80% or 90%?
Yes, we should call the far left the far left.
Not surprised Melenchon is autocratic himself. It comes with the territory. There is, BTW, a horseshoe vision of politics where fascist and far left idea can almost converge.
Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I've gathered from what little I've read about events in 21st-century France that its ethnic-minority population is mostly Islamic. The presence of a large Muslim minority in a country like France is problematic because it is a basic tenet of their religion that society should be governed in accordance with Islamic law, which is fundamentally at odds with the Enlightenment ideals that underpin the government and laws of France and every other Western democracy. The hope that this problem will somehow be solved through intermarriage seems overly optimistic to me -- particularly if, as seems likely, the rate of reproduction among the non-Islamic French population is well below replacement level and that among the Islamic minority is substantially higher.
You have perfectly summarized the RN views
OK, so what? You disagree, I take it, but why?
PS I've found a cogent article along similar lines in Foreign Policy magazine from someone better-informed than I. If you find that unpersuasive I hope you'll tell us where you think it goes wrong and why you think so. Here's a link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/17/even-sweden-doesnt-want-migrants-anymore-syria-iraq-belarus/
I agree with much of this except I think it’s hard to deduce that the French have chosen Melenchon’s LFI to lead them.
Three points: 1. The new parliament is roughly divided into thirds between the far left, the far right, and the center. No one group as a majority, and the leftist group is a very heterodox coalition that is not really controlled by Melenchon. I would expect there to be an attempt to woo the more moderate Socialist group away from the New Popular Front to form a government with the centrists and the moderate right. Who knows if it will be possible? But there aren’t enough votes on the left to form a government without some centrists.
2. Macron, who you deprecate as past his sell-by date, has greatly strengthened France’s economy, reducing unemployment to record lows, making needed entitlement cuts, and making France one of Europe’s most business-friendly countries. Both the far left and far right want to reverse all this with populist budget-breaking proposals. The only good thing about this election is that neither will be easily empowered to dismantle his achievements.
3. The wildly impractical economic plans of the left, and only slightly less ridiculous program of the far right, are probably not possible. Both want to create huge new spending projects using essentially borrowed money. But France’s debt is already high. Macron has just been able to keep bond rates feasible, but lenders are unlikely to provide the funds for someone like Melenchon’s absurd agenda. Rates would go sky high and make it impossible, and confiscating large amounts from the wealthy and middle classes would not be sufficient. In short, the LFI agenda is a pipe dream that won’t happen.
To answer the repeated question of why I find Persuasion so frustrating, and so emblematic of this whole world of right-wing publications that for whatever reason brand as centrist, here you go - an essay that literally has the conclusion "leftists and fascists are the same."
If you think I'm wrong, PUBLISH AN ESSAY BY A FRENCH FAR LEFTIST THAT EXPRESSES AS UNRESERVEDLY PRO-LEFT SENTIMENT AS THE ANTI-LEFT SENTIMENT IN THIS PIECE.
"The further left has always had its share of counter-establishment institutions. The Nation, after all, is one of the oldest magazines in the country, and some academic disciplines have long been at the forefront of leftist thought. But the left, too, has of late succeeded in building a more cohesive network of fighting institutions; as universities have become much more progressive, movements like the Democratic Socialists of America have awakened from decades of peaceful slumber, and publications like Jacobin have infused the movement with fresh intellectual energy.
Five or ten years ago, our potted history might have concluded here. Ideological movements from conservative to libertarian to leftist had fighting institutions of their own. Though philosophical liberals did not have a comparable home, they could confidently express their views within mainstream institutions.
But then those institutions started to change."
https://www.persuasion.community/p/41856950-b495-43b6-bf92-6380dc253f49
Persuasion is not a leftist publication, it's a liberal one. So you'd expect to see articles in it arguing against the left, and not articles defending the left. It's also not intended to give "all sides" of opinion, but rather be a liberal complement to established partisan leftist, libertarian, conservative publications, etc.
Sure it's "right" compared to leftist publications, but that's true of literally every opinion publication that isn't leftist. It's weird how you're putting everything into two buckets of "left" versus "right wing."
Furthermore, the essay is not attacking the left as a whole, not even all the parties within the New Popular Front coalition. The writer is attacking Melenchon and his LFI. I have seen several interviews with leaders of, for example, the Greens over the course of the campaign who have insisted that Melenchon does not speak for them and they do not see him as the leader of their bloc, even if the media like to portray him as such.
Nonetheless. LFI s clearly the senior party in the coalition and Melenchon its best known, most charismatic, and most controversial, figure. To what extent he woll be able to dominate the new National Assembly is very much an open question.
Good reply. Thank for writing it—your patience and perseverance is admirable.
You're too famous to be such a baby.
To call it Persuasion right-wing is disingenuous at best. To be leftist is not to be liberal. Yascha is trying to do what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. did after World War II, which is to hold the liberal center. Leftists in California are forcing professors to incorporate DEI into every discipline. Leftists are trying to force everyone to write DEI statements despite the precedent of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Loyalty oaths and forced statements are anathema to liberals, but heartwarming to Fascists.
Most of all, you deliberately ignore the central arguments of this excellent and perspicacious essay. Melenchon is indistinguishable from Chavez. He is an authoritarian and hardened antisemite. The leftist coalition in France has stifled moderation and ability while elevating extremism.
The hard right and the hard left are anti-liberal. They use identical tactics, such as the suppression of the liberty of one’s conscience and the right to speak freely. If sticking your head out of the ideological echo chamber causes you to panic, then you need to ask yourself if you are in the Melenchon/Chavez camp or with those who wish to restore the post-war liberal consensus.
While attempting to follow the chaos of French politics, it helps to remember that France is in its fifth republic while during the same time period the US is working (most of us hope) on a long-term project to improve its first.
In the late middle-ages, the French coined the term "perfidious Albion", which now has a certain irony to it.