Marine Le Pen is to the left of Bernie Sanders on just about everything but immigration; and yet, Republicans all over America are treating her like she’s Joan of Arc? This is both bizarre and disturbing. Either it means that the populism that has taken root within the Republican Party is so racist, so ethnocentric, that they are willing to overlook 99% of other issues in support of anti-Muslim candidates across the globe; or it means that the populists in the United States are horrendously ignorant and lack an ideological, a moral, and a philosophical compass. I believe it is the former.
Marine Le Pen is a nationalist and a socialist and a populist: The Germans had a name for this in the 1930’s. Listening to populists in the United States even has that stomach-turning 1930’s feel.
Within hours of Le Pen’s ascension to the runoff election in May, the leaders of every other party unified against her. This means that she will likely lose in a stunning defeat. While half of France agrees with her on immigration issues, the vast majority of them are not willing to move their party into a position which could quickly devolve into a viscous authoritarian regime. The European Union needs to fix it’s immigration policies before all of Europe falls to National Socialist movements.
Marine Le Pen is closely tied to Vladimir Putin and seeks to not only remove France from the European Union, but from NATO as well. In truth, it appears that Vladimir Putin’s strategy of divide and conquer appeals to a great many populists in the West, who are all too willing to cooperate in the division.
In the meantime, Russia and Turkey both seem to be gravitating away from their interest in peaceful and productive relationships with Europe and the United States, representing the rise in “populist and authoritarian” leadership. While Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump and their authoritarian populist supporters celebrated Erdogan’s victory in securing greater dictatorial power in Turkey, there seems to be no disapproval from the growing populist wing of the Republican Party.
This is a warning for Republican officials everywhere. These populists within our party are supporters of left-wing authoritarians like Putin, Erdogan, and Le Pen. The most important thing for Republicans to do, today, is to prevent the spread of authoritarian populism within our own ranks. Many of the populists in the Republican Party are authoritarians at-heart and they are dangerous.
In the meantime, we need to secure our borders and unleash our economy. Prosperity and security are the only ways to destroy populist uprisings on the very very far right and the very very far left. Republicans in Congress need to get productive legislation to the President’s desk in an efficient manner. The failures of Republican Leadership will only serve to enlarge the ranks of the populists within the party. If populists within the Republican Party today support the likes of Vladimir Putin and Marine Le Pen, and if their ranks continue to grow, just what kind of candidates will we be forced to consider in the future? Our situation is precarious and I pray our leaders take it seriously.
62 comments
I offer a genuine thanks to you, Steven, for drawing out the crazies, identifying them by name from their posts here. There is no better litmus test than a preference for Le Pen and it is present here aplenty. For those who think us mad for opposing her, it is good you should know we vehemently disagree. Neither her country nor ours is without the resources to address any menace that arises from within or outside our borders. Those who cry alarm in a move towards suspension of liberty were simply awaiting an excuse for the heavy-hand of more government intervention.
Fully agreed with Steven, support for Le Pen is inexcusable and proof extremists in any party define its center. Republicans have a problem here. Choosing between Freedom and Security is easy — I prefer the former over the latter because I am an American.
This article is about Europe. I suggest you put yourself in their shoes. Europeans are facing a violent totalitarian threat. One that has threatened them numerous times and is threatening them again. America has faced similar threats but thanks to the Bill of Rights, we have soundly defeated them. Europe has not been so fortunate.
Have you ever read “The River Wars” by Churchill. He quite effectively describes the dilemma that Europe faces with Islam.
Israel has faced this type of daily terrorist threat in local schools, shopping centers, and bus stops for years. A friend of mine once remarked that we wouldn’t put up with this here. Ironically, now, the Democratic party expects us to do just that in America. I fear Le Pen is actually far right, a fascist, or at least her father was, but when a people’s civilization are threatened, extremism happens.
All of the politicians of Western Europe are various brands of socialists, communists or fascists. La Pen has the distinction of recognizing that multiculturalism is a disaster and violent Islam an existential threat. To me, she and Wilders are quite similar to Churchill prior to WWII. He was ridiculed and called every name in the book until he was proven to be horribly correct.
America, including our own communities in Virginia, are socialist without question. Not communist, nor on the road to it, but socialist, with government providing far more than necessities and essentials.
Multiculturalism is not a disaster, it’s essential.
Well, even the vaunted Angela Merkel has said multiculturalism is a disaster. Of course she has done nothing about it but that is the classic bait and switch of the left.
I could not possibly care less what Angela Merkel thinks. Neither can she or anyone else prevent it. I come from a family of immigrants. I revel in its glories, live in a country with a Statue of Liberty that invites all to her shores. I reap the benefits of her many immigrants, the sum total of which grow our economy and further assert our might (well over 50,000 non-citizens in our military today — during wars we invited illegal and legal immigrants alike to join our military, illegals and legals are subject to any draft we exercise). Without immigrants America is nothing, multiculturalism her key strength.
You are so full of crap. Third world immigration plus welfare portends a disastrous future. Multicultis such as you always laud the changing demographics. Well about the damn demographics behind the changing demographics?? How many of the immigrants AND their children are collecting welfare benefits? How many of their children have dropped out of school and had children out of wedlock? That is an area into which you do not dare tread because you and your ilk cannot stand the truth.
Without Le Pen France will literally cease to exist; and quite soon at current demographic and immigration rates.
One cannot gave France without French people, non?
The fact anyone can oppose Le Pen with the stakes so obviously high is bizarre and disturbing.
Just look at WWII if you don’t understand. Appeasement is always the easy course until it fails horribly.
It may just be that we have not received accurate info. Every time I hear mention of Le Pen, she is referred to as a far-right candidate. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own candidates without being on top of all foreign candidates too.
Now the article states that this far-right candidate is actually a leftist candidate? I’m skeptical but am grateful I won’t have to vote in France as well as the US since I don’t know enough to vote overseas.
The left also refers to the NAZIs (National Socialists) as far right. The were right of the German communists by a little bit at the time but certainly no right wing democracy espousing party.
There is no doubt, none whatsoever in my Semi-Semitic cerebrum that guys like Steven Tucker will declare that “Immigration is a serious issue,” but they will do nothing about it. We have heard this for over 30 years from the GOP Establishment and how they were going to clamp down on the border, but the reality is that the business and banking elites who really own this country want open borders and cheap third world labor that is easily controlled and manipulated. What the Steven Tuckers of this world do not understand is that the entrenched elites want to keep the middle class down and themselves on the top, because it is only the middle class that can make things uncomfortable for the donor class. As George Carlin put it, “The last thing the owners want is a population that is well informed and capable of critical thinking. They want people who are smart enough to run the machinery and fill out the paperwork, but dumb enough to not realize how they have been thrown overboard 35 years ago by a system that continually bleeps them in the arse.” We populists have long given up on the GOP with its all talk and no walk on third world immigration. And now that we have finally become a force to reckoned with, what is the only recourse the Tuckers of the world have against us? To call us Nazis. Wow. So deep, so profound, so empty.
Seems relevant to your points. Who cares if we descend into a literal third world state (third world people invariably recreate third world living conditions after all) as long as we don’t engage in ugly old populism and we have our Constitution?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5275c0366f9352bfece657636858a8bfc1bc350644634cff0f5659975f268a0e.jpg
I absolutely believe that we need to secure the border, however I don’t believe that open borders is the central problem. Europeans aren’t breeding and have opened themselves up to serious demographic problems. Most industrialized nations understand that immigration is necessary for providing a workforce to pay for social services and pensions etc. It’s the illegal immigration and the unsustainable immigration that’s a problem. And it is a problem. I’ve specifically said that the Republican leadership needs to secure the border.
I’m not expert on French politics; however, everything I read about Ms Le Pen says that she wants to reduce corporate taxes and individual taxes, reduce total French spending and cut the government workforce, tax French companies leaving to produce elsewhere (hum, where have we heard that?) and extricate France from the socialist+ EU, and return both the Franc and the borders of the French people. Sounds a long way Bernie Sanders to me.
Her opponent was a former Socialist minister only a year ago, and is now running an very vague campaign that does promise to keep the borders open and to keep inviting in people whose operating ideology is incompatible with Western values – even French values. It sounds like he is more the Bernie type of guy, and besides he has been in conversations with BHO…what more can you say? He’s a socialist.
She, and evidently a great many Frenchmen don’t want to sink into a third world hell hole with random violence and “no go” zones. She seems pretty solid to me, and is about as conservative as one could ask for the French.
As an aside, I’m unable to find see any direct link to Mr. Putin, who, after all is the leader of a nuclear power that is very aggressive, thanks to Barack Obama. What exactly would you have her, or Mr. Trump say to him? France is a nuclear power, and has always been wary of the NATO alliance. So Mr. Le Pen’s position is actually a rather “French” position. Mr. Putin would like to separate Europe, but, again that is an historical avocation of the Russians and nothing new. What is new is that the EU, being Socialists, would fold like a cheap suit if directly threatened, without the U.S. I think Mr. Trump has been pretty clear – he’ll deal with Mr. Putin because he is there, and if we can do things together, great, and if we cant (which we can’t) we won’t . Pretty realistic to me. Finally, the President is no longer a candidate, and as such his approach to Mr. Erdogan’s victory was less celebrator than pragmatic. Turkey is an uncomfortable member of NATO with Kurds to the north and Kurds in Syria. POTUS seem to be threading the needle in the Middle East, to form a coalition (pretty cleaver actually) to deal with the immediate threat of Iran. He evidently has enlisted the Israelis, Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians in this effort. Does his phone call to Mr. Erdogan signal approval; I think not. It signals realism. First things first.
Finally, you wrote, “This is a warning for Republican officials everywhere. These populists
within our party are supporters of left-wing authoritarians like Putin,
Erdogan, and Le Pen.” I am all over DC lately, and I’ve been traveling quite a bit to both Texas and points west. I find zero, absolutely zero support for that assertion. I’m talking to conservatives, Trump folks, and just plain ‘ol Republicans and I find a remarkable amount of unity right now behind the President, and a broad understanding that he is meeting head on the incredible mess left behind by the Democrats. Lumping your fellow Americans, Ms. Le Pen and Brexit supporters as being the same as Mr. Putin or Mr. Erdogan’s supporters is obviously a slander that worried, frustrated Americans and Frenchmen both, don’t deserve. Count me in the “viva Le Pen camp.
Frankly, every time a poster fills an article with every “ist” label imaginable in lieu of describing specific policy issues, I ignore the author and his/her point of view. This posting is a perfect example of why.
I seen a few Libertarians supporting LaPen. Shaking head.. Lino’s
So libertarians should be supporting Macron?
Yeah, Americans of all parties are confused.
The Gates of Vienna has a great article about the fears of the average citizen in Western Europe. It is entitled something like “What will we tell our Children?”
It will be in Arabic, so I can’t understand it.
Vienna is in Austria not Iran. I think they speak a bit of English or even some German. I suspect you can struggle though even though American public schools are less than competent in teaching common language skills.?
You missed the joke. 🙂
Whatever the Europeans tell their children will be in Arabic, because Europe will fully become Eurabia by 2050.
I got the joke but I think I was a bit too subtle in response. I think I will vacation in the Visigrad countries. They get it.
,,.. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f4bf01fbe3ef352d58767dbda38e0d9977c980017300af48dc39e7980a0822f.png
,.., https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4cfb660720f14160a59aabeab6ab4237e48513db98f5b8a3f79c1106f76e7f96.jpg
The slaughter of innocents for the greater good.
To lump Putin, Erdogan and La Pen together is absurd. Putin and Erdogan are dictators. La Pen isn’t even in command, and Hollande is the better example as he has been running a martial law France for two years thanks to Islamic violence (which continues to grow and will continue to grow if Macron is elected). If you want a comparison how about macron and khan, the mayor of London who both excuse Islamic terrorism as a fact of life – sort of like the weather.
… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/213d852370eda8cc0154adaf87264607e8308b29840fe0666aa0230b62f7a33a.jpg
The single biggest issue in the world today is the rise of violent Islam. La Pen has made it quite clear that france’s border, language and culture are essential to the preservation of Western civilization. Macron, on the other hand, is like obama – a man who favors a great grey global socialist dystopia and goes “ho hum” nothing we can do.
I remind you to go back a few decades and ask yourself when did you first notice Islamic terrorism anywhere in the West? It was virtually non-existent, a curiosity and shame at best. Today, it is ever present and European polls show that the average Western European citizen has radically altered his or particularly her behavior for fear of assault, rape and murder.
One final point, the rise of populism is directly related to the utter failures of global socialist leaders to solve virtually any problem associated with Islamic violence, -and calling someone islamophobic isn’t a solution it is a cop-out. Frankly, I don’t want my children to have to face down this ancient totalitarian scourge anymore than my great grandparents had to face down a similar scourge of Nazi totalitarianism. Unfortunately, it appears that we follow the same course of appeasement that led to the deaths of tens of millions.
,,, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/027a4c58add40ebf4aac3c97f6aa938c2ae4178240507eab03ac48098d1c674d.png
The fact is that you’re not going to get any great shakes out of anyone in France. Best we ever got was Sarkozy, and the moment he suggested increased overtime pay for anyone working over 30 hours a week, he was tossed out of office on his posterior.
Le Pen and Geert Wilders are pretty much the same when it comes to issues. Why people in the US supported Wilders like he was some patron saint was surreal. But Wilders was the best we could have gotten at the time. Same with Le Pen.
Support of the nation-state as the supreme temporal authority is the common theme for the man on the street. I can understand Trump’s support. Our trade deficit with the EU is 2nd only to our deficit with China. Divide and conquer. Break up the EU and negotiate bilateral agreements where the US has much more leverage over individual European countries.
Translating international politics is difficult if not impossible. Coalitions in countries coalesce for very different reasons. If nothing else, LePen is authentic. Her message has been consistent for years and she has actively worked to remove the racist elements (including her own father) from her party. The French know what they will get. Macron just made up his own movement/party. He could do pretty much anything since he has little track record by which to judge him.
But the danger is translating “populist movement” and assuming they mean the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic. They do not. Traditionally, European populist movements end up with massive amounts of dead people. The US has no such heritage.
LePen is not likely to win, but I think it will be closer than many propose. In particular, her economic policies are to the left of Macron which will appeal to a certain section of the French electorate who are less concerned with immigration, etc. than their own pension. Also, having the ENTIRE establishment come out against her is going to backfire and appeal to some people.
This French election is another chapter in what has been a fascinating couple of years, politically speaking.
Thank you for the insight. I heard some of this same thought process on the news this morning. Good information for all Americans to know and understand.
If this is true, she will definitely win!
In the end this is all about immigration.
Many of those “populists” believe that unchecked immigration from third world countries is a fundamental threat to western civilization. A threat greater than any domestic issue. And they’re not entirely wrong. So they’re willing to support almost anyone who wants to reign it in.
Not saying I agree with it, but its easy to understand.
We’ll see. I still think Le Pen will lose by twenty points, because I don’t believe the French are half as crazy as some of the folks we got over here. I agree that immigration is a serious issue and that the other parties and the EU in particular need to get their act together. They are going to help swell the ranks of some very, very bad people. (We’ve seen this before).
Considering their circumstances I don’t think voting for Le Pen would be crazy at all.
Being to the left of Bernie Sanders might still matter over here, but France is already ridiculously left-wing. So short of going full bore communist I don’t see how it could get much worse.
So their choices are:
Le Pen = Living in a far-left socialist hell hole
Macron = Living in a far-left socialist hell hole being overrun by a violent, regressive third world ideology
I still feel like that is a false dilemma. I understand it is central to everyone’s arguments though. Obviously immigration is a bigger problem in France than in the United States, but I’ve been there in the last five years and I didn’t see any signs of the 3rd world.
You also probably didn’t visit the muslim ghettos of Paris. They’re worse than a third-world country… and fairly visible from the above-ground metro lines.
Paris is just one city.
You’re correct. Paris is just one city. Check out Marseilles (the most dangerous city in Europe); it makes Paris still look like a first world city by comparison. Lyon is also occupied Islamic territory and has the crime and violence to match.
Speaking of Paris
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/2-american-women-assaulted-muslim-men-paris-refusing-sleep-video/
I don’t see how anyone could miss the changes that have occurred in both Paris and London during the past five years. The changes are stark and unmistakable. If it has been five years since you were there, perhaps it’s time to take a serious look now.
Then you must walk around Europe with your eyes closed.
Illegal and uncontrolled immigration isnt an issue, it is the issue. I prefer the issue be settled short of all out war in the streets and thus favor “the wall”. France, on the other hand, has not controlled its borders and has now been under martial law for two years. Paris is paying for this failure with almost nightly riots and attacks that are overwhelming civil authority as well as a substantial decline in tourism.
Security over liberty proves you deserve neither.
There is no conflict between security and liberty with regard to illegal immigration…. unless you are only concerned about illegal immigrants.
Like our founders, I apply liberty to all “persons” within our borders. And, no, John Candor, the religion of whomever is calling the shots is irrelevant. That is what we Americans call liberty, religious freedom, the primary motivator for creating our nation.
There is a difference between legal immigration and an illegal foreign invasion. Yes, the constitution does protect legal immigrants and green card holders with due process rights, but it does not require us to treat illegal foreign invaders as if they are citizens. I’m sure James Madison had a rather negative view of the Brits burning the White House in the war of 1812, but he did not view it as a legal matter requiring us to preserve their rights to ‘liberty’. He expelled them with the Army.
When millions of non-citizens flaunt our immigration laws, move here illegally and then demand that they be treated like citizens, it is ridiculous to assert that our constitution requires us to do so.
Madison was clear: Aliens owe the US “temporary allegiance” and are therefore entitled to its equal protection under the laws.
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1235007104.shtml
Example: When Texas sought to deny non-citizens access to its public schools, the US SupCt ruled their children are covered by mandatory education laws just as are those of citizens.
No, they are not citizens, but they are covered by the constitution’s many guarantees as if they were. They can be and have been drafted into our military and more than 50,000 non-citizens serve in the US military today.
You’re still missing the point. Lawful immigrants are aliens. They are non-citizens, and they do have protections. That doesn’t mean illegal immigrants are protected. I just gave you the example, though extreme, to prove the obvious point. You haven’t addressed the issue of illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants are, of course, illegal, but nonetheless entitled to equal protection under our laws. This doesn’t exempt them from prosecution and deportation for their immigration crime, but neither does it exempt them from other laws. This is important because we generally do not know until they are prosecuted for another crime.
To your point: Many illegal immigrants have served in the US Armed Forces and during times of war they are encouraged to join. They are not currently encouraged to join, but it happens. Serving in our military is one of the best backdoors to citizenship (like marriage, or a pro athlete contract, etc).
How do you have a nation where Muslims call the shots and either liberty OR security?
Why do (some American) Republicans support her? Because tax rates, trade deals, regulation, etc etc are all secondary issues if your country is being invaded and its people slaughtered.
Tax rates, trade deals, regulations are all products of a legal system. Invasion is the destruction of what is legal.
Got it — you choose security over liberty. You deserve neither.
No, you don’t got it. I suggest you read the 5000 year leap.
I suggest you take a leap, but you won’t. You prefer security to liberty. You are un-American.
I suggest you look up the meaning and context for the Franklin quote. It is not what you think it is.