While Philippe has some sharp analysis, it feels like both of you still trying to explain away the reality a bit.
--Treating the public's evaluation of Zemmour/Le Pen as the product part of some propaganda campaign, as opposed to...a reasonable assessment of the statements and public lives of the two of them.
--Talking about the prospects for a Le Pen/Zemmour-type candidate, while mostly ignoring that Macron has succeeded by managing to claim the center. This is particularly relevant for the polarization discussion.
"The French public opinion has been for years, in fact for decades, very strongly opposed to immigration."
And yet the winning candidate somehow never reflects this strong preference of the electorate. Funny how I never see any of the supposed defenders of democracy take an interest in this disconnect.
Funny how we always see the "we are a republic, not a democracy" pretending to not understand that representive democracy is not about the government doing exactly what people want on any given issue
When the public has a very strong, very widepread policy preference on an issue of paramount importance and that preference is never reflected in government policy, that is a big deficit of democracy by any standard. "Doing exactly what people want" is a ludicrous understatement, and it isn't just "any given issue."
Absolutely worthless comment, this doesn’t contribute to the conversation and I’m pretty sure it would chase off better discussions, so I’m going to start removing these.
What's a better discussion Richard, one that acknowledges that Macron is better than Le Pen? He's not. He's prepared to accept that some citizens of the French republic don't have the same rights as others. And he doesn't care less.
While Philippe has some sharp analysis, it feels like both of you still trying to explain away the reality a bit.
--Treating the public's evaluation of Zemmour/Le Pen as the product part of some propaganda campaign, as opposed to...a reasonable assessment of the statements and public lives of the two of them.
--Talking about the prospects for a Le Pen/Zemmour-type candidate, while mostly ignoring that Macron has succeeded by managing to claim the center. This is particularly relevant for the polarization discussion.
"The French public opinion has been for years, in fact for decades, very strongly opposed to immigration."
And yet the winning candidate somehow never reflects this strong preference of the electorate. Funny how I never see any of the supposed defenders of democracy take an interest in this disconnect.
Funny how we always see the "we are a republic, not a democracy" pretending to not understand that representive democracy is not about the government doing exactly what people want on any given issue
When the public has a very strong, very widepread policy preference on an issue of paramount importance and that preference is never reflected in government policy, that is a big deficit of democracy by any standard. "Doing exactly what people want" is a ludicrous understatement, and it isn't just "any given issue."
Term/word counts
Zemmour - 41
Le Pen - 88 (hah)
Macron - 27
Sorry who was running again?
Absolutely worthless comment, this doesn’t contribute to the conversation and I’m pretty sure it would chase off better discussions, so I’m going to start removing these.
What's a better discussion Richard, one that acknowledges that Macron is better than Le Pen? He's not. He's prepared to accept that some citizens of the French republic don't have the same rights as others. And he doesn't care less.
As for your removal of my post, how democratic.