Headline: Macron’s response to the ‘gilets jaunes’ taps a French thirst for debate
Sub-headline: A Montpellier window into grievances aired in the ‘Grand Débat National’
Poor Macron, he stumbles over his authoritarianism under the rubric of Jupertarian Politics, that is facing the test of popular discontent. The canny ‘reformer’ would have started with the ‘Grand Débat National’ and built upon it. Consider this the arrogance of an enarque , in sum, a Technocrat of Neo-Liberal Disasterism.
Ms. Chassany continues to produce apologetic propaganda, but this time she personalizes it, with the addition of her family members, that adds charm and an insight into what matters to her, in its way winning and humanizing! Also indicative of a class bias, but propaganda is just that, and no more.
From what political quarter comes this?
If anything, the debate has raised expectations of reform — again — with the political risk of generating further disenchantment if it does not translate into concrete measures.
The Great Unwashed is exacting its costs on France’s Neo-Liberal Golden Boy, whose political ambition seeks the World Stage of the Leadership of the European Union, as his political capital is a the point of 31% : almost a match to the 36.5% of spoiled and uncountable ballots,that brought Macron to ‘power’ . Celebrated in the pages of this newspaper as a turning point in French politics, as the coming of Neo-Liberalism, not so carefully placed under the propaganda rubric of ‘reform’. Could this be the turning point that signals the end of French Socialism? The expression of a hope of the Financial Times coterie?
Tellingly, they differed on the wealth tax — calls for its reinstatement have been omnipresent in the protests
The repeal of the ‘Wealth Tax’ is a demonstration of Macron’s status as Oligarch!
Old Socialist
https://www.ft.com/content/3e977470-457e-11e9-b168-96a37d002cd3
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.
StephenKMackSD's Blog 