Everything is going as planned. A few months after the breakup of Nupes, it only took half a day to remake it under another name, exactly as if nothing had ever happened since the Hamas attack. Nothing, that is to say the monstrosity of La France insoumise now revealed through and through on the basis of ideas and strategies. The “left” brand of identity is stronger than anything among those – obviously quite numerous – who are not disgusted by this type of cuisine. A taste for electoral calculation too.
In political matters, perversity pays. The Mélenchonians succeeded in their attempt. With a little less than 10% of the votes collected in the European elections, they were able to present 230 candidates in the legislative elections, or more than 40% of the total. I know that we would have to take a closer look and weigh the chances of success district by district, but that doesn’t matter. In the end, the main thing is elsewhere: all the signatories agreed to see LFI provide the bulk of the parliamentary battalion, embody the whole, set the tone.
We therefore have, in the same bag: sovereignists and pro-Europeans, Putinophiles and Putinophobes, pacifists and belligerents, industrialists and degrowthers, those nostalgic for a managed economy and those committed to free enterprise, those who resist public accounts and those indifferent to the debt, fiscal avengers and cautious realists, community wokists and worshipers of the nation, guardians of an indivisible territory and resolute autonomists, secularists and Islamists, claimed heirs of the Council national resistance and barely repainted anti-Semites, defenders of freedoms and enemies of the government of judges… The most absolutely, the most irreversibly incompatible chemistry. Basically, all that remains to cement this overall “identity” is the attention paid to the reduction of inequalities: this area that the left has, whatever it has said about it, taken a back seat for a long time for devoting himself to the edification of the masses who are too insensitive, in his eyes, to the importance of minorities.
The five questions to ask yourself
These things being what they are, it is necessary for philosophical hygiene to ask ourselves at least five questions in the political and moral chaos into which we are thrown:
1) Can we validly, like François Hollande claiming not yet to know the details of the political agreement concluded, declare to the 20 Heures newspaper that: “What is essential is that the union was able to take place. I have differences that we know about, but there is a moment, we go beyond the differences, we get to the essentials”?
2) Can we validly turn a blind eye, now that this agreement is known, to the fact that it constitutes a Himalaya of demagoguery, 80% inspired by the most leftist and least reasonable forces of the lot, particularly on the ground debt and preventing the risk of a major financial and economic crisis?
3) Can we validly write such a program “for butter” – that is to say, create the corresponding expectations in the population – when we are almost certain of not being able to implement it in the end? of the ballot boxes and that it is first a question of creating the conditions for a subsequent alternation?
4) Can we validly make people believe in the solidity and durability of a parliamentary team thus composed, considering what we have seen, over the past two years, of the real functioning of the Insoumis, in light of the reasons which dislocated their previous alliance?
5) Can we validly stage the resipiscence of those who accept, in this “legislative contract”, to qualify the pogrom of October 7 as terrorist massacres – we border on the feat… – and to affirm their support for the Ukraine when they notoriously don’t think a single word about all this?
Any political agreement presupposes compromise. This does not mean that, since the end is called upon to justify the means, we must cut back on everything and particularly on the essential, as François Hollande would say.
.