Ending the Embargo

What is the place of the Front National in French politics? Should it be a separate autonomous party, as it is now, or should it be the right-wing of the Establishment Right, i.e. of the UMP party headed by Nicolas Sarkozy? At one time in the 1970's and 1980's, the Front National was loosely allied to the Establishment Right, but the two entities diverged (apparently the Establishment Right condemned these alliances, hence the "embargo" of the title), with the FN becoming known to the press and the public as the "extreme" Right, and the Establishment Right becoming known simply as the Right (to many, as we know, it is the "false Right" since it has drifted so far to the Left). Is it time for the two to fuse again, or would the Front National disgrace itself, as Philippe de Villiers seems to have done, by entering into an alliance with the Establishment? This article is from Observatoire du Parlement and was featured also at Le Salon Beige, where readers engaged in a long and interesting discussion:

In all the countries of Europe, every time there is a rise in power of the nationalist Right beyond the level of 15% of the votes, this Right participates in coalition governments.

That is the logic of democracy: any political movement that respects the rules of the game and receives a substantial degree of support from voters is bound to assume its share of political responsibilities.

It is the only way for politics not to turn into the pursuit of war by other means. It is also the only way to prevent voters from sinking into nihilism and violence.

France, because of the craftiness of François Mitterrand, the dictatorship of the politically correct media and the cowardliness of the Establishment Right politicians, has become the only exception to this democratic rule.

The embargo against the Front National is an impasse for democracy: a party that plays the democratic game and submits to the same rules as its rivals should have, proportionally, as many elected officials and responsibilities as it is possible to have considering the election results.

It is also an impasse for the Right: the majority party in the country when it is combined with the FN, it finds itself once again a minority in the regions where it could have won.

It is time to end this embargo that deprives the Right of one voter out of three and leads the Left to believe that its "politically correct" rhetoric has the approval of the French people when, in fact, the people have had all they can take of crime and immigration.

Note: The article raises some questions:

- Is the politically correct rhetoric confined to the Left, and merely IMITATED by the cowardly Establishment Right? Or do the politicians of the Right, such as Sarkozy, his UMP party leaders and members, actually espouse these politically correct notions on race, immigration, Islam, métissage, etc...?

- In other words, are these anti-French, anti-Western trends taking root universally, or are they really the work of the Left, implying that they would disappear if the Right had stronger, more resolute leadership?

- Would a man like Jean-Marie Le Pen be strong and resolute? Or is another personality better suited to the task of re-programming the French media, the French mentality, and the French educators and intellectuals?

- Can we be sure that the 48% of voters who did not vote last Sunday would have voted for the FN if they had taken the trouble to go to the polls? If that is the case, then WHY did they not vote? And more importantly, why did they not vote massively for the FN in the first round, thus enabling the FN to win at least third place in more than just 12 regions? (The FN had candidates in all 26 regions.)

- Assuming that almost half of the electorate, i.e., the abstentions, are sympathetic to the FN, it makes no sense for them to stay home and not vote, unless they do not like what Jean-Marie Le Pen has done to the party. This is very likely. Le Pen through his ambiguities (to be polite) has turned off many would-be voters. So it is really now up to Marine Le Pen to change the party's image. She attempted something like that in the 2007 presidential election and was rewarded with a stinging failure.

- It is possible of course that many FN sympathizers don't like Marine either, or Gollnisch, and they stay home because they cannot bring themselves to cast a ballot for what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as unreliable leaders.

However, is it not possible that many of the abstentions were immigrants with no real interest in the election, or simply people too apathetic to vote? This would mean that only a portion of the 48% would have voted for the FN, but it still does not answer the question as to why they stayed home, when their vote was so critical.

Here's a look at what Le Salon Beige readers had to say:

- That is the reasoning of Jean-François Kahn on BFM Television when he said that if the FN remained firm or advanced further in the next legislative election, the UMP would have to make an alliance with the FN or disappear. He added that if we apply yesterday's results to the legislative election, the UMP would end up with about 50 deputies, as opposed to the current 317, which includes the satellite parties.

- Let's not dream... But it is clear that if the FN had been represented in parliament and in the government over the past 30 years, the situation in France would have been different in many ways

- I agree with the article, and with the conclusions. But it would only be possible with Marine Le Pen, who would purge the party of its liabilities. Experience has shown that an UMP party whose message is clearly right-wing, can win over a good number of FN voters, provided actions follow words. When we look at the candidates and the UMP party leaders, it is doubtful...

- I do not think that the UMP is in reality part of the Right. It is more of the Left than of the Right. On the other hand, the FN is simply the Right and not the "extreme" Right. But the right-wing politicians are PARALYZED by what the Left dictates to them...

- Let's not forget that politics is the art of the possible, not of Utopia. An alliance between the FN and the UMP is necessary in order to limit the stranglehold of Socialism/Communism on public budgets. And it would be a good thing to have before us an empowered FN, in order to put an end to the fear of a "harmful power". The MSI and the Lombard League in Italy have united, and there is a whole new ball game with regard to crime and immigration. But of course we have the stupidest Right in the world...

Note: the reader seems to be making a reference to the Italian Social Movement (MSI), which has merged and changed names several times. Today we speak of the Northern League, the result of several mergers and name changes.

- The FN has nothing, absolutely nothing, in common with this sludge that dares call itself the "Right". The FN must take care to remain strictly outside of any attempted alliance. That will take time and many tears, but one day, the truth will impose itself on the French people.

- "The FN must take care to remain strictly outside of any attempted alliance. That will take time and many tears, but one day, the truth will impose itself on the French people."

Sure. When France is an Islamic Socialist Republic it will be much better than the UMP. I have a million reproaches to make to Jean-Marie Le Pen, but I try to discern the essential thing: my country.

As was said above, Italy is the model to follow.

Final note: The reluctance of many Front National leaders and members themselves to join the UMP also has to be taken into consideration. The UMP party has moved so far to the Left, that any association with it would be perceived as a sell-out or at the very least as a dilution of basic principles. The FN has to decide if it can win without the UMP. And the UMP has to govern as a conservative party worthy of the name would govern. Moreover, the FN has to adopt only sound principles that inspire confidence in the electorate. So, everybody has to make some definitive choices without delay.