Brussels Élites let out their long sigh of relief – the French Right was blocked. Markets complacently shrugged; “everything must ‘change’ to remain the same.” The Centre will find a way!
Macron successfully had blocked the “populist” Right and Left through mandating a Centrist tactical defensive line to be dug, obstructing both political poles. And the tactical blockade was a success.
The “Right-wing” Le Pen party – out of 32% of votes cast – won 125 seats, (just 22% of the Legislature). The Left took 180 seats out of a 26% share of the vote, and Macron’s bloc Ensemble claimed 159 seats from 25% of the vote.
No one party, however, has enough seats to govern (usually this requires some 240 to 250 seats). If this is deemed success, it surely is a Pyrrhic success. The Leftists comprise a spectrum of opposites – from Anarchists to contemporary Leninists – whose Melenchon core will never co-operate with Macron’s Centrists, nor with Le Pen’s aggrieved followers, either.
Historian Maxime Tandonnet says it is a heroic misinterpretation of events to think that Macron has achieved anything other than a fiasco:
“Operation Jupiter has degenerated into the worst possible scenario. It is a total impasse.”
It is impossible to form a functioning government from this Assembly mêlée. (Macron has refused the resignation of the losing PM, asking him to stay on, ad interim).
Well, as Henri Hude, former Director of Research at the Saint-Cyr military academy, observes:
No one can doubt that a revolution is in the making in France. Expenditure by the State and the Welfare State far exceeds resources, which it is almost impossible to increase significantly, either through economic growth or taxation …
The only way for the State to make ends meet is to run up increasing debts, which can only be supported by very low interest rates – but above all, by the ability to issue money infinitely, ‘out of thin air’ thanks to the Euro’s privileged link to the German [high credit rating for 10-year Bunds].
Were these facilities to cease, “financiers estimate that France should have to cut the salaries of its civil servants, or cut back their numbers, by around a third, and retirement pensions of everyone by a fifth. This is obviously unfeasible.”
“What is in reality a budget and trade deficit is disguised as debt and would have been purged thirty years ago by national currency devaluation – but this debt artifice [increasingly benefits the rich]… whilst the general population never ceases to grumble, living its’ rose-tinted dream – and held in blind ignorance of the state of our finances … That said, the ruling class is well aware of the situation, but prefers not to talk about it, because no one knows what to do.”
There can be no doubt at the moment of truth, when states declare themselves bankrupt … the West will be shaken to the core – and some will pop like champagne corks. The economy will have to be reorganized. Perhaps also we will see cultural revolution. It was the failure of the French State – let us not forget – that provoked the French Revolution …
But you may ask, why cannot this [monetary profligacy] go on indefinitely? That is what we are going to find out, but not just yet.
“Today, even before the bankruptcy has been declared, the loss of confidence in the institutions: The powerlessness of the public authorities, deprived of prestige and authority, and the detestation of the President – make it possible to foresee the energy of the shockwave that would be unleashed by revelation of the fiasco. A ‘Greek-style’ scenario is unlikely in France. We had better bet on something else” (controlled inflation and a devaluation of the Euro?).”
Of course, France is not alone. “The Euro system was supposed to force the countries of the Euro to be financially wise and ‘virtuous.’ But the very contrary happened.” The sound credit of Germany permitted other EU States to “lean” heavily upon a German privileged rating to self-indulge in infinite debt – through keeping all EU sovereign debt levels artificially low.
So long as the privilege of the U.S. Dollar persists, that of the Euro should remain – except that the war in Ukraine is ruining German industry, first and foremost. France already faces an EU excessive deficit procedure. So do other EU states. Germany has its debt brake and must make cuts of Euro 40bn. Austerity is underway in most of the Eurozone.
The American dollar – at the apex of this liberal debt pyramid – is crumbling, along with the western “Rules-based Order.” The world’s geo-strategic “plates” – as well as its cultural zeitgeist – are shifting.
Put plainly, the problem inadvertently exposed by Macron is insoluble.
“We might call the emerging ethos ‘the new populism’,” writes Jeffrey Tucker:
It is neither left nor right, but it borrows themes from both in the past. From the so-called ‘Right,’ it derives the confidence that people in their own lives and communities have a better capacity for wise decision-making than trusting the authorities at the top. From the old Left, the new populism takes the demand for free speech, fundamental rights, and a deep suspicion of corporate and government power.
The theme of being sceptical of empowered and entrenched elites is the salient point. This applies across the board. It is not only about politics. It hits media, medicine, courts, academia, and every other high-end sector. And this is in every country. This really does amount to a paradigmatic shift. It seems not temporary but substantial; and likely lasting.
What happened over four years has unleashed a mass wave of incredulity [and a sense of the illegitimacy of the Élites] that has been building for decades.
The philosopher Malebranche wrote (1684) in his Traité de Morale: “Men forgive everything, except contempt”:
An elite that fails in its duties is called élitist; From then on, their activity seems unjust and abusive, but more importantly, their very existence is an affront. This is the source of hatred, of the transformation of emulation into jealousy, and of jealousy into a thirst for revenge—and consequently of wars.
What is then to be done?
To reinstate the American Order, and to silence dissent, a NATO victory was deemed necessary:
“The biggest risk and biggest cost for NATO today is the risk of Russian victory in Ukraine. We cannot allow this,” Secretary-General Stoltenberg said at the NATO anniversary in Washington. “The outcome of this war will determine global security for decades to come.”
Such an outcome in Ukraine – versus Russia – would therefore have been seen by some in Washington as perhaps sufficient to bring any rebellious dollar-trading states to their senses, and to re-instantiate western primacy across the globe.
For a long time being an American protectorate was tolerable, even advantageous. No more: America no longer “frightens.” Taboos are breaking down. The mutiny against the postmodern West is worldwide. And it is clear to the global majority that Russia cannot be defeated militarily. It is NATO that is being defeated.
Here is the “hole at the centre” of the enterprise: Biden may likely not be around for much longer. Everyone can see that.
Some EU leaders – those dangerously haemorrhaging political support at home, as their cordons sanitaires against Left and Right fracture – may similarly see war as the exit to an EU approaching an insoluble fiscal train-wreck.
War, conversely, allows all fiscal and constitutional rules to be broken. Political leaders suddenly transform into Commanders-in-Chief.
Sending troops and offering fighter jets (and longer range missiles) could be interpreted as intentionally aiming for a wider, European war. The fact that the U.S. apparently thinks to use F-16 bases in Romania might be intended as the way to cause a war in Europe, and save various sinking Atlanticist political fortunes.
There is, by contrast, clear evidence that Europeans (88%) say that “NATO member countries [should] push for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine” – with only a tiny minority of those polled believing that the West should prioritize goals like “Weakening Russia” or “Restoring the pre-2022 borders of Ukraine.”
Rather, the European public overwhelmingly is shown to favour goals such as “avoiding escalation” and “avoiding direct war between nuclear armed powers.”
What is more likely, seemingly, is that pent up anti-war feeling in Europe will burst forth – perhaps even ultimately leading to the rejection of NATO in its entirety. Trump may then find himself pushing at an open door with his NATO stance.
Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.
