It is an iron rule of European elections: the one who wins is the one who mobilizes his camp. Who finds the words to get their loved ones out of bed on a Sunday morning. With the Ukrainian conflict, the executive thinks it has found the ideal alarm. During the Renaissance launch meeting in Lille, the room vibrated more with attacks against the supposed Putinophilia of the RN than with praise for European construction. “Our electorate is attentive to questions of geopolitics,” notes a campaign executive. “This unites and pushes them. It’s good to strike and divide on this subject.” “Fear is a lever for mobilization,” said a Macronist strategist in February. Gabriel Attal played this score this Tuesday in the Assembly, on the occasion of the vote on the security agreement with kyiv. “Rise in energy prices”, “Increase in food inflation”, “migratory wave”… the Prime Minister warned of the consequences of a Russian victory, in his speech defending the French aid strategy in Kiev.
The international context lends itself to this strategy, fueled by the tactical errors of the RN. When he created a Commission of Inquiry into Foreign Interference, he left it to the majority to hold the pen of the final report by granting him the position of rapporteur. On Thursday, the far-right party will send the very Russophile Thierry Mariani to replace Jordan Bardella during the first televised debate of the campaign. “Blessed bread for us, feasts a Renaissance pillar. But their delegation is so weak that he is the only one capable of holding a debate.”
“To say that MLP is Goebbels is grotesque and weak”
Hit, how? Knock, and that’s it? Quietly, this question is winning over the presidential camp. Several voices fear that overly caricatured attacks against the RN will not produce the desired effect. The self-proclaimed camp of reason cannot, for the sake of ease, give in to shortcuts. And throw away the “complex thinking” dear to the President of the Republic by appropriating the simplistic rhetoric of his opponent. “Attal is doing a little too much in the caricature of Soviet Concorde tanks if the RN wins,” notes a deputy. An interlocutor of the Head of State confirms: “To say that MLP is Goebbels is grotesque and weak.”
A strategic consensus is observed in the majority. The offensive against the RN is essential, but insufficient. Essential, to flush out the far-right formation and raise the stakes of the June 9 election. Insufficient, because it will be necessary to develop a project for the Europe of tomorrow. By exclusively targeting the RN, Renaissance would lock itself into a challenger posture, so far from its status as a presidential party. And then, Europe is in the DNA of Macronism. The Renew delegation has a record to defend. “We are not campaigning against anyone,” warns Renew MEP Gilles Boyer. “We must no longer apologize for being what we are, but accept it.” “There is a somewhat morbid fascination with the rise of the RN. Be careful not to get stuck in this comment,” adds a Renaissance executive. And too bad for the trial of blissful Europhilia initiated by the oppositions. You have to talk to its base.
One overplays the resistant, the other overplays moderation
“We clearly understood that the goal of the majority was not to talk about Europe but to give us a label of support for Putin to avoid talking about their record and prospects,” laughs the RN deputy from the North Sébastien Chenu. And when we see the polls where we continue to progress, we see how effective it is.”
Everyone ultimately plays their role in a play of which they know the outcome. Macronie takes on the costume of resistance in the face of a National Rally complacent with Vladimir Putin’s Russia; the far-right party overplays moderation in the face of a “hawkish president”. This Tuesday, in the National Assembly, the RN abstained after considering voting against. What does it matter if, in 2022, Marine Le Pen defends a “security” alliance with Russia. Better to deny your own program rather than appear to support Putin less than 100 days before the European elections. “They cannot vote against because of public opinion but cannot vote for in order to remain faithful to their line and not to anger Russia,” analyzes a former minister. The RN, here, overplays subtlety to better mask its ambiguity.
Courage let us abstain
“It’s not our fault if your way of thinking is binary,” defends an RN deputy. Voting against would amount to being pro-Putin, by abstaining, at least we are not pro-Putin. “abstention is balance.” In the hemicycle, Marine Le Pen justified this decision by invoking several red lines, including Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the European Union. And to question the government’s intention: “To camp on the camp of good and reject all opposition in the camp of evil? Either we are pro Macron or we are accused of being pro Putin.” The RN has found its golden rule: courage, let us abstain.
.