French voters will vote on Sunday as to whether the centrist Emmanuel Macron should serve a second term as president or whether Marine Le Pen should replace him.
Polls have shifted back to Macron’s favor in recent days, but the race remains close. I hope Macron wins.
I recognize that some will flinch at that suggestion. Le Pen has tapped a nerve of some legitimate anger. She rails against a political and media class that judges those who prioritize tradition and who express concerns about their quality of life. The intersection of high immigration rates and criminality is one of these legitimate concerns. The rising cost of living and pressure on individual finances is another. So also is the undemocratic technocracy of the European Union.
Unfortunately, Le Pen offers few credible proposals to address these concerns.
Consider, for example, that a central cause of crime in migrant communities is the enduring French failure to integrate newcomers. Prejudice in college and employment applications and poor government services do little to encourage young migrants to believe that they are valued members of the Fifth Republic. Gangs too often offer countervailing appeal as a means to restore male pride. Nearly 20 years after suffering major riots, the commune of Clichy-sous-Bois remains impoverished and run down. Many “banlieues” or satellite suburbs outside of major French cities share these afflictions. These are places that the French conveniently forget when criticizing America’s race relation challenges.
What of their governing philosophies?
Both Macron and Le Pen want to bolster France’s pluralistic secular political culture. But more than Macron, Le Pen rightly calls for improved border security and a reestablishing of French judicial supremacy. This judicial supremacy question cuts to much broader issues of democracy and national sovereignty. Indeed, although much of the media ignored it, the restoration of British legal supremacy helped motivate the 2016 Brexit vote.
Again, however, Le Pen’s policy prescriptions would make things worse. Le Pen wants to make it harder for immigrants, even those already long arrived, to establish formal credentials and recognition. How she believes this will foster integration is unclear. Instead, as is likely Le Pen’s intent, her policies would increase sectarian animus and division. Le Pen’s movement retains a racist character at its core. Hers is a much more exclusive vein of Trump-style populism.
It’s true that Macron has done little to help himself counter Le Pen’s populism. The president often appears arrogant and aloof. Nor has Macron taken any significant action to address the core drivers of pressure on household incomes: the intersection of a vastly bloated government sector and high tax rates. Even adjusting for COVID-related spending, for example, the country’s government spending exceeds 55% of its annual GDP.
Macron deserves more credit for his social security reforms. If Social Security is the third rail of American politics, it is the traditional death knell of French politics. Macron has shown true courage in standardizing pension benefit schemes and moving to raise pension eligibility ages which, due to demographic changes, are no longer fiscally sustainable.
It is in the field of foreign policy, however, that Macron should be the clear preference.
Macron adores the international limelight, sometimes to his and France’s cost — as was the case with his rush to Moscow prior to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. But he is not solely defined by his showmanship. Macron has made laudable efforts to address powder-keg concerns, such as the crisis in Lebanon, which do not always make the front pages. Unnecessarily delaying troop reinforcements of NATO’s eastern flank in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he has since proven himself a reliable NATO partner. The French air force is particularly impressive in this regard (though it needs more capability). As an extension, and unlike Germany, Macron would almost certainly order French forces to support NATO were Russia to attack the alliance.
When it comes to China, Macron’s outrage over the AUKUS submarine deal was legitimate, if only because France was not informed in advance of the arrangement. Macron has since had his revenge via supplanting the United States with an arms deal with the United Arab Emirates. And although Macron diminishes France by wooing China, he has authorized French navy actions that show a laudable commitment to the U.S.-led liberal international order.
In every sense of the word, Le Pen’s foreign policy is far simpler. Her ideology takes root in the casual worst of French anti-Americanism, embracing a delusional localism with none of Napoleon Bonaparte’s idealistic panache. Le Pen has disdain not only for the U.S. as a nation, but for the international order it sustains. She would pull France from NATO’s joint military command, effectively severing its forces from the alliance’s front-line deterrence-response activity. Le Pen talks tough on China but would likely bow to Beijing’s demands on topics such as human rights and Taiwan in return for its expanded trade investments. Certainly, Beijing would seek to woo Le Pen by virtue of her anti-Americanism and ability to degrade the Western alliance. Of course, it is on Russia where Le Pen proves the most problematic.
The repeat presidential contender deludes herself that Russian President Vladimir Putin is some kind of transnational guardrail against woke liberalism gone mad. Instead, Putin has cut a blatantly transactional deal with the Russian Orthodox Church to promote some of its teachings in return for its overt political loyalty. Le Pen’s penchant for Putin isn’t surprising. She is literally in the paid service of Moscow. Her party has taken more than $12 million in loans from Kremlin-linked banks. Remember, Kremlin loans never ever come without strings attached. But Le Pen has earned her credit. She has pledged support for Putin’s invasion of Crimea and promised relief from sanctions imposed after that invasion. While Putin’s more recent invasion of Ukraine has forced Le Pen into a tougher stance, it lacks credibility.
Put simply, Macron is far from perfect. But it is Macron who offers France and the democratic world the best chance at improved lives and future prosperity.
