Why Le Pen won’t win French presidency
Voters have rejected the hard right and avoided the trap of populism
The polls had barely closed at 8 p.m. Sunday when the also-rans began appearing on television — acknowledging defeat, denouncing the hard right, embracing the soothing centre.
Such is the confidence of polls in France that candidate after candidate — and the prime minister, too — acknowledged the result without knowing it. It was hours before the official (with three per cent uncounted) count declared that Emmanuel Macron (23.7 per cent) would face Marine Le Pen (21.5 per cent) for the presidency.
There had been much anxiety that a “surging” Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a leftist, would make it to the run-off on May 7, setting up a contest between extremes. But Mélenchon (19.6 per cent) came behind François Fillon (19.9), the former prime minister, who endorsed Macron. Mélenchon did not.
Polls here are critical. The exit polls were dead on, as were the campaign polls, even though the professionals hedged their bets, describing the outcome as “uncertain” amid a high level of undecided.
So when polls Monday showed Macron entering the run-off leading Le Pen by 20 or more points, you can take this with more confidence than pollsters forecasting the prospects for Brexit and Donald Trump.
Less than two weeks before France votes again, Macron’s likely margin challenges the narrative that the country is moving right. Or that it is following the populist trend in Britain and the United States.
The story of the first-round election is that France has rejected the hard right, like the Netherlands and Austria. Beware of declarations that Le Pen signifies the triumph of “the people” in France. The wave stops here.
This isn’t to say that Le Pen cannot win: Macron, an unproven politician, may falter under the strain of the campaign. His movement (“En Marche!”) did not exist a year ago, and may not have the organizational prowess to carry this off. Disillusioned voters from the other parties may stay home. Moreover, Macron’s ambiguity on policy may be a liability against a demagogue such as Le Pen.
The Russians may intervene in the election, as they did in the United States. Le Pen, like Trump (who all but endorsed her on the weekend), talks warmly about Vladimir Putin.
Yes, things could go wrong for Macron, as they did for the highly favoured Hillary Clinton. But the burden of proof remains for Le Pen to persuade the country that closing its borders to immigrants, leaving the EU and adopting an isolationist, nativist and racist crouch, is the future.
It is dark and fearful. Le Pen will have to make this case against Macron, who will argue that his patriotism is more than narrow nationalism.
He has more room to grow. His sunnier vision of France is one that benefits from immigration, profits from free trade and lowers perennial unemployment with innovation.
The system is against Le Pen; unlike Trump, who lost the popular vote and won a narrow victory in an antiquated Electoral College, she will have to win a clear majority.
In 1958, Charles de Gaulle designed the Fifth Republic to give France’s president that kind of authority and clarity.
Jean-Paul Sartre, one of this country’s great philosophers, defined existentialism. Now the French face an existential crisis of their own, defined by terrorism, social malaise, economic weakness and a loss of stature. That will not go away in two weeks.
But as of now, most of them do not see Marine Le Pen as the solution. The election is Emmanuel Macron’s to lose.
Andrew Cohen is a journalist, professor and author of Two Days in June: John F. Kennedy and the 48 Hours That Made History. andrewzcohen@yahoo.ca