First lesson: those who pretend to discover the abjection of the theses propagated in a large part of La France Insoumise to justify departing from them are now making fun of the world. I do not put them without nuance in a single basket, but the facts are stubborn: there has never been any mystery about the orientation that we have seen illustrated on the airwaves in the monstrous genre since the Hamas attack. Anne Rosencher recalled clear precedents here.
When Nupes was created, its promoters had just decided to look elsewhere, considering – for various reasons – that the essential thing was not there. The French left, however, did not lack reasons to know that the existence of Israel as a refuge for the Jewish people and the renunciation of the slightest complacency with regard to terrorism were precisely what was essential. I mean: of Western civilization as it has been constructed since the end of the war. But it was all pushed under the rug. The truth is that, from the Socialist Party to the Communist Party via Europe Ecology, we have accepted with our hearts and by pure electoral calculation to associate with the proponents of ideas that are completely unfrequented, and that we have thus contributed to making them banal. .
Second lesson: it would be wrong to believe that, with nausea helping, the page will turn. During the major elections to come (presidential or legislative), the “truly left” identity will weigh much more heavily in the ballot boxes than the memory of pogroms, both old and recent. As long as LFI continues to embody this brand, it will continue to collect votes. It will lose some with the end of the Nupes and the amplification of its own internal struggles, but it can hope to conquer others, which its Islamo-leftist roots will have stimulated. The wind of opinion is pushing in this direction. Whether we like it or not, in large sections of today’s youth, the cultural and cognitive battle against this vision of the universe is now lost, and it will be for a long time.
Third lesson: we should think about what are the so-called “values” deemed to structure most political groups, both left and right. When you think about it, even “real” parties (and not just the Nupes-type groupings) are almost all designed as gigantic catch-alls, only built by vague feelings of belonging. It is even those whose philosophical homogeneity is the most tenuous who claim their community of spirit with the greatest energy. This was the case for the Socialist Party, even after the referendum on Europe mortally fractured it. It is that of the Republicans, whose glue is anything but strong regardless of their leadership quarrels. But this is not a bad thing in itself. All the reasons in the world lead us to prefer this type of accommodation to the pressure of great ideological constraints. The “party line” melts people’s minds. It is therefore excellent mental hygiene to be able to not feel good “with the family”. But finally, as the Nupesian example of recent times shows, there are – or there should be – limits to everything, and first of all to the very appetite to constitute these so-called families anyhow, with anyone, and especially at any price.
A compass so as not to lose this north? I would sell them if I knew how to make them. But I nevertheless take it for granted that political groups are always eaten by the same worm: the tension towards electoral victory all too quickly becomes an end in itself. They all rot there when all they have left to exist and offer their troops what, to a large extent, they ask for, namely something to keep in their hearts a strong feeling of political identity.
The central question for the citizen should always be whether he has reached this point of renouncing the true substance of his primary commitment and “his” with him. Those who agree to ask themselves this question – and therefore to leave the last word to their critical freedom to determine what is still acceptable – have the means to escape moral shipwreck. The others sink as Nupes sank long before it burst.