I propose a discussion limited to political philosophy.
Can the Academic Community help understand social turmoil in France and propose a rational answer? Or help understand one aspect of the French crisis of the “Gilets jaunes”? Is French president Emmanuel Macron, while presented as educated and intelligent, in fact a simple, even “second class » intellectual at the wrong place ?
He was an average student, never involved in any academic achievements, with no university career, no publications and no evidence of any particular intellectual, cultural or scientific achievements. In history, number of statesmen were similar to Mr. Macron in this respect. Except from one: Many advanced sound arguments, demonstrated common sense and even when not successful, majority of them demonstrated practical wisdom (phrenesis). Here bellow is one short list of the numerous problems of Mr. Macron:
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-9-greatest-gaffes-blunders-french-president/
1. Affaire Benalla
2. Stop complaining
3. "Cross the street" to find work
4. Stubborn Gauls
Speaking in Denmark on a diplomatic visit in August, Macron quipped that "the Lutheran people" had embraced "the transformations" of recent years, in contrast to "the Gaul refractory to change."
5. "Crazy dough"
"Look, we are putting crazy dough into minimum social benefits, and people are still poor. They don't get out of it. The people are born poor and remain poor,"
6. 'Slackers'
"I am of an absolute determination, and I will cede nothing, not to the slackers, not to the cynics, and not to the extremes," Macron proclaimed at the French School of Athens.
"They are certain ones who, instead of creating havoc, would do better by going to see if they cannot get jobs," he told a local official in November after being greeted by protesters at the opening of a college for construction workers.
7. People who are "nothing"
“A train station, it's a place where one encounters people who are succeeding and people who are nothing," Macron declared. "Because it's a place where one passes, because it's a place we share."
Then, I would add:
8. Declare “French culture does not exist”.
9. His “futuristic” economical measures systematically impoverish the most disadvantaged.
10. His English is just supportable with heavy accent. (French intellectuals often speak much better English).
11. His funeral speeches seem to be his better side.
12. His so called “program” contained the principles, and just a few concrete measures – and this is now contested.
13. Exclamations like “Come, get me”, or the allusions to homosexual connections with Benala… are bizarre.
14. The present Gilets jaunes crisis is mainly caused by Macrons personality.
Etc.
The French president — a Parisian-educated Énarque and ex-Rothschild banker — is often accused of being out of touch with voters and even his attempts to bridge the gap fall flat.
Yet, is president Macron a simple, not particularly educated, not sufficiently knowledgeable, but ambitious and confused, average man who arrived at a wrong place?
I would appreciate an academic, serious, rational discussion, if possible detached from the problems and language that may inflame political sentiments.
First, Macron was elected the Global Elite, and then there was just a procedure of so-called democratic elections. Therefore, the question arises: What does Macron have to do with it? There would not be Macron, there would be other person. You should ask those who nominated Macron and most importantly "Why nominated". One can trace the analogy. How did Hitler come to power? It's simple - at first he was appointed by those who wanted to use it to start a war against the Soviet Union. Then there were completely democratic elections and Hitler came to power in a completely legal way. I want to ask "What are the claims against Hitler, if he was appointed?". None! Then, when Hitler came to power, strange events followed one after another: Initially, they calmly gave him the Rein's region, then there was the Munich Agreement, then quietly they gave Austria. Has anyone objected? No one. We often forget to ask about those who bring people to power. However, it is known that "who ordered the crime" is more guilty than the perpetrators of the crime. However, in big politics, "who ordered the crime" never bear punishment, at best, this is an honorable resignation and nothing more. Therefore, I'm asking "What does Macron have to do with it ?" From myself I will say: I like his musical education, which no one mentions.
I do not think so. The dire situation in France has its roots in Macron's idea of setting up an independent EU army. This was greatly ridiculed by president Trump and what is happening in France today is monitored elsewhere by those who want to be an international gendarme by manipulating NATO forces for domestic gains.
Reza,
Thanks, but we need here some clear arguments, not just conclusions. What make you believe this? No Gilet jaune mentioned this so far. I gave the list of the objections addressed to Macron. My question is whether this indicates some intellectual or educational weaknesses of Macron. A capable well educated, well informed politician would not produce such bizarre behavior.
What is happening in France has implications for several things that have nothing to do with raising or lowering the indicators of any president within the European Union, including England's decision to withdraw from the European Union, Germany's policy, sometimes indiscriminate random reactions, the consequences of making wars to improve useless economies
First, Macron was elected the Global Elite, and then there was just a procedure of so-called democratic elections. Therefore, the question arises: What does Macron have to do with it? There would not be Macron, there would be other person. You should ask those who nominated Macron and most importantly "Why nominated". One can trace the analogy. How did Hitler come to power? It's simple - at first he was appointed by those who wanted to use it to start a war against the Soviet Union. Then there were completely democratic elections and Hitler came to power in a completely legal way. I want to ask "What are the claims against Hitler, if he was appointed?". None! Then, when Hitler came to power, strange events followed one after another: Initially, they calmly gave him the Rein's region, then there was the Munich Agreement, then quietly they gave Austria. Has anyone objected? No one. We often forget to ask about those who bring people to power. However, it is known that "who ordered the crime" is more guilty than the perpetrators of the crime. However, in big politics, "who ordered the crime" never bear punishment, at best, this is an honorable resignation and nothing more. Therefore, I'm asking "What does Macron have to do with it ?" From myself I will say: I like his musical education, which no one mentions.
Thanks Gennady, what you say may all be true. I did not now that he had some musical educations (piano?).
However, as I wrote, one educated intellectual in France normally has sufficient knowledge and manners not to produce so many trivial mistakes, to behave as Emmanuel Macron behaved during his time in Elysée. How can we explain this behavior if not by lack of education and knowledge?
The more the rebellion of the Yellow Vests in France continues, Emanuel Macron demonstrates less and less intellectual capacity to face the relatively simple problem. Just a small fraction of the population has serious problems that are easy to solve. France has free health system and, similarly to Germany for example, adding substantial aid for accommodation and free food distribution to the most disadvantaged would probably solve the acute problem. Yet after almost complete refusal to satisfy the financial demands, the rebellion turns out into political movement and the demands grow: replacement the parliament, better control of the deputies, possibility to recall the representatives, more communication with the corresponding member of parliament, more direct governance (referendums) are on the list. Not legality of the election of the president but the president's legitimacy is put into question and will be hard to counter. This all may be a result of the obvious basic incapacity and immatirity of president Macron.
Debates.
We are witnessing now number of debates all over France that are supposed to “solve the problem of Yellow vests” and their demands. It is permanently asked what those demands are? Yet the demands were perfectly clear and well defined 3-4 months ago! and there is hardly anyone who does not really know what those demands are. There are certainly some difficult issues, like referendum demands or some details about possible resolutions of the redistribution of wealth and about exact burden of the costs or exact contributions to the state budget. Yet the debate goes around technicalities about some very simple and regular communal activities and modalities of the organization of public services.
It is not only obvious that the government (and certainly E. Macron) is trying to avoid all serious responses to the demands but it is evident that the method how this is tried to be solved is not intelligent. Is Emanuel Macron behind this all? How it is possible that the French intellectual, the French government, is not aware that the measures that are promoted lack any signs of knowledge, intelligence and method for solving the crisis? I am surprised that such blindness is possible. The question remains: Is French president Emmanuel Macron, while presented as educated and intelligent, in fact a simple, even “second class » intellectual at the wrong place ?
I include two texts about my reflections about the problem.
I don't like this kind of debate at all, which is worthy of mainstream social networks, but not of Research Gate, which is a scientific network. So I hope it will not happen again here.
Dear Patrick Gubry,
here at Research Gate we are trying to evaluate international events from a scientific point of view, from the point of view of elementary logic and common sense. Why? There is a famous phrase
"If in our time you do not take up politics, then politics will deal with you".
I want to remind brilliant words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... of German theologian and Lutheran pastor Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me".
We should not wait submissively until events become irreversible.
Patrick
?
More often, this is not the question but rather the answer that may be scientific or political propaganda. Therefore I am not inviting for debate people who seek ordinary political struggle but the people who are interested in social psychology, political science and similar. So please stick to the RG rules.
Please, Patrick, avoid politics here. Thank you very much indeed.
- Badges
- Science topic