on Macron’s appeasement of The Mob. Old Socialist comments

Mr. Rachman’s little melodrama starring the ‘wounded’ Macron could not qualify for the Spelling-Goldberg treatment on American Network Television, such is its weakness in terms of dramatic kitsch.
Forget the stunning fact that in the final election 36.5% of voters expressed their revulsion at the choice of Macron vs Le Pen, by rendering their ballots uncountable. A subject never broached by Macron’s apologists, here at his propaganda headquaters in the Anglophone World.

Patience grasshopper! Mr. Rachman offers this, and himself as the ultimate arbiter of the question of Macron:

So Macron-haters have seized upon the unrest in Paris to argue that the French president stands revealed as a massively flawed leader — remote, arrogant and pushing an outdated neoliberal agenda. By contrast, Macron-lovers insist that their hero can ride out his current troubles and still be a transformative president.

There is more, but hardly surprising is his contemporary hagiography of The Great Man, with a bit a caviling to lend an ersatz verisimilitude . It cannot be otherwise at The Financial Times:

Neither verdict is convincing. Mr Macron is indeed an impressive figure. He has correctly identified the need for structural reforms of the French economy and has bravely made the case for internationalism. But the bleak truth is that the president is gravely wounded by the gilets jaunes protests, the accompanying violence — and the panic-driven U-turns in government policy.

The above paragraph succeeds the first to demonstrate to the reader that  Mr. Rachman  isn’t just another apologist for Macron, it is a rhetorical feint. Mr. Rachman presents the three imperatives of Macron’s ‘Jupertarian Politics’:

To understand why that is the case, you need to examine three key aspects of the Macron agenda: internal economic reform, deeper European integration and global governance. These three ideas are interdependent.

‘Internal economic reform’ is a stand-in for the Neo-Liberlization of France, that has brought forth open rebellion. ‘Deeper European integration’ means more of the failed institution of the E.U. , a cartel with the trappings of ‘Democracy’: look to Greece and Italy as the economic laboratories that failure. ‘Global Governance ‘ is the place holder for the Trade Agreements TTP and TTIP, that take their Corporatist model from the ersatz democracy of the E.U.

Mr. Rachman sees Macron’s ‘sense of momentum created by these reforms has now been destroyed. ‘:

The Macron loyalists are right to point out that their man has already notched up real achievements. He has pushed through changes to the rigid French labour markets, which should make it easier to create jobs. And he won an important victory against the powerful railway unions. But the sense of momentum created by these reforms has now been destroyed. The Macron government has had to reverse its increase in fuel taxes. And the president is likely to promise further sweeteners to appease the demonstrators.

Appeasement makes its appearance as evidence of the prima facae unworthiness of The Mob, in sum, Macron represents Enlightenment Values, while that Mob represents a retrograde Socialism. The critique that Mr. Rachman offers of Macron is that he capitulated to The Mob. Reading through the rhetorical underbrush of Mr. Rachman’s polemic, the reader reaches its final glum paragraph, awash in *political disillusion :

If Mr Macron had been able to break this dismal cycle, his international credibility would have soared. He could have emerged as the global champion of liberal values — such a champion is sorely needed. Now, however, it seems highly unlikely that Mr Macron can save the world. He will be lucky if he can save his own presidency.

Old Socialist

*This reader just wonders, Isn’t this a bit premature?



About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.