Tonight is September. Here we are. Everyone in front of the same intersection. With three possible routes. Continuing straight on with the same ones hardly enchants anyone anymore.
The wear and tear of time, the lightness of the troops, the laziness of the courses, the ministerial endogamy, the loss of sensors, the amateurism of the movement, the intimate drying up of power have inexorably led the President to hear less well, less well see the realities, anxieties and priorities.
The rest after this ad
Let us say it as clearly as the French did on June 9, it is no longer possible to continue as before.
The rest after this ad
The left too often allows us to free ourselves from the constraints of reality
By proceeding with the dissolution, the President wanted to acknowledge this. There would be a lot to say, from our comfortable commentator chairs, about the method or the timetable but that would not add much.
There would also be a lot to be said about this political class which wastes its time and ours barking that it is basically the only one not to be in any way responsible for decades for the gap which is widening between the elites in charge and the people.
The rest after this ad
The rest after this ad
But that wouldn’t do much either. Turn to Mr. Mélenchon then? It is in bourgeois circles that the solution appears to be the most chic and generous.
It’s the left and the left too often allows us to free ourselves from the constraints of reality. It exonerates us from being blind. Ariane Mouchkine, a great figure on the left, summed it up perfectly in a courageous confession a few days ago: “ I think we, people of the left, we, people of culture, are partly responsible. We let the people down, we did not want to listen to the fears, the anxieties. When people said what they saw, they were told that they were wrong, that they did not see what they saw. It was just a deceptive feeling, they were told. Then, as they insisted, we told them they were idiots, then, as they insisted even more, we called them bastards ».
Not seeing the reality of public schools or access to healthcare, the reality of ghettoization and the rise in violent delinquency, not seeing the reality of the consequences of the absence of migration regulation on our national territory.
And then the left frees us from complex political analysis. It raises us on the terrain of morality. Let us remember the words of Stefan Zweig: “ For the first time I learned to carefully observe the eternal type of the professional revolutionary, who, through his attitude of pure opposition, feels himself grown in his insignificance, and clings to dogmas because he finds no point of support in himself. »
Moreover, Mr. Mélenchon, it is not, it is no longer the left and October 7 has shaken off some of the voters who prefer the left when it is universalist and secular. Mr. Glucksmann’s very good score was proof of this. But the lightning betrayal of June 10 caused a disappointment all the more serious because it had aroused hope among those who had believed in the possible de-segregation of the socialist party.
Turn to Madame Le Pen then?
Beyond the moral field which has more than amply demonstrated its ineffectiveness, this appeal poses the same problem as for Mr Mélenchon. It describes certain everyday realities better than the other two but offers simplistic solutions – therefore ineffective tomorrow – to complex issues. It too often departs from the existing framework of national rule of law and international interpenetration. And finally she changes position on a number of subjects depending on the wind. She is not the only one, let’s admit, but she has made it a systemic tactic.
To use the words unfortunately left unheeded by Mr Fabius, Madame Le Pen often asks the real questions but provides false answers.
In this case, “what to do?” » (as Lenin said)
Choose the least bad route? The two bifurcations are not to be judged on the grounds of morality. We must return to politics in the noble and concrete sense.
Bet that the central road, if it is now seriously developed and widened tomorrow, if it gains in coherence and concreteness, if it is worked with new teams and above all a new method, if it leaves Paris seems to me to be the less dangerous for our children.
Less endless self-talk but a radically different line of missions and organization
Today, only President Macron can still convince people to borrow it. But above all, it must, on the one hand, not judge the alternatives but recognize – really do it – its errors of assessment and, on the other hand, propose three or four major projects capable of mobilizing all generations. Safety, school, health, nature, housing. Order and ecology. A national service dedicated to defence, citizenship and the environment? a public service for young and old people and people with disabilities? the regionalization of health policies? It was him that the French wanted to “slap in the face”. It’s up to him to answer it.
Less endless self-talk, but a radically different line of missions and organization. The French want to get involved but not like before. Fewer major debates and toll-free numbers but a top administration revisited from top to bottom. A President of his rank and another way of listening to each other and acting on a human level.
Renan defined the nation as “ a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things which, in truth, are one, constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the common profession of a rich legacy of memories, the other is current consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to assert the heritage that we have received undivided. »
Let’s stop wasting time mapping electoral constituencies, let’s solve people’s problems and build with them a project bigger than us.
