The upcoming legislative elections in France (on June 30 and, in the second round, on July 7) tell us a lot about politics. It also suggests some comparisons between American and French politics.
The left-wing parties fighting for a majority in the National Assembly formed a coalition of the masses, the New Popular Front (Nouveau Front Populaire) or the NPF, which temporarily unites in the pursuit of power leftist and extreme leftist parties, including the Communist Party. In each cycle, the NPF uses one candidate on the left. The far-right National Rally (Ralliement National) or NR, and the center-right Republicans (The Republicans or LR) have agreed on a common electoral coalition. The Renaissancethe centre-right party of the current president, Emmanuel Macron, is running on loose ties with several smaller parties.
“Extreme” is a matter of degrees. Many Americans do not realize that a typical Democrat in America would be called center-right in France. An independent analyst would be hard-pressed to find the difference between, say, Barack Obama and Emmanuel Macron. Political extremism is less extreme in America than in France, but that may have started to change in the last few years.
In the current French election campaign, it has been observed that the only elements of the plan on which all parties in the NPF really agree are to raise taxes and transfers—that is, to redistribute more money and benefits in some way to favored political clients. The redistribution is basically to the poor and middle class, at the expense of the “rich” or, in fact, the less rich. It is a common political phenomenon that, whether on the left or the right, those who want to rebuild society have trouble agreeing on what kind of utopia they want.
Interestingly, the far-right program is more popular on the left and targets the same customers with the same things like more “social” spending, which is in turn funded by the “rich,” and other price controls. Far right is its addition duck immigration and more protection. The left adds “environmental planning” and a lower minimum wage. As Anthony de Jasay would say, according to public election theory, a political party that wants to be elected goes after the votes of the poor 50%+1 of the electorate with the promise of looting on behalf of the richest 49%. In general, and regardless of why the psychologically uninformed voters support one party or another, the essence of politics or the way politics works involves harming some people for the benefit of others. At least, this is politics as we know it.
The “center-right” of Mr. Macron is more prudent than extreme, if only because he has already raised the annual budget deficit to 5% of GDP.
Apart from general political activity, the main political similarity between France and America—after the Enlightenment, as America had a very short history before—is that many citizens in each place think that freedom (“liberté”) was born and lives in his country. In fact, freedom has been attacked in both places, often in the name of its own defense, by their glorified political authorities, earlier and more clearly in France than in America. In America, the worst is yet to come; over the long history of France, it has come many times.
Marianne is a creative and attractive woman who symbolized the French Republic historically. Her portrait or bust has taken on different aspects over time—most recently, those of French actresses such as Brigitte Bardot. The featured image of this post reproduces the current Marianne logo of the French region. Some may think that Marianne is a symbol of sexism, but it certainly shows how well the French government has worked in government propaganda and the image of promoting national pride and obedience. Classical liberals and libertarians are rightly suspicious of the glorification of the state.
The upcoming French legislative election (like the upcoming US presidential election) shows how escaping political turmoil is as difficult as it needs to be. How can politicians be stopped from competing and discriminating against some citizens in favor of others? Nobel laureate economist James Buchanan and the constitutionalist school of political economy he inspired proposed placing politics in unanimously elected laws at the highest “stage”, the constitutional stage. At that mystical level, politics is like a profitable exchange, while everyday politics under Leviathan is about discrimination and exploitation. (See my Econlib review of the book by James Buchanan and Geoffrey Brennan The Reason for the LawsAnthony de Jasay, another economist and political philosopher worth mentioning on these issues, proposed a powerful solution: to eliminate politics; that is, completely replace individual choice with collective choice. (De Jasay’s book The state and his own We are against politics they are good entrances to this strong theory; links to my Econlib reviews.)
Pessimists will choose that any good is a long shot. I would argue that some consideration along those lines is necessary for the future of individual freedom and prosperity.
Source link