P2V and the MPF: State of Denial

On Saturday, I went where no self-respecting left-leaning academic would dare, or deign, to go:

I accompanied a conservative friend to the launching of Philippe de Villiers's presidential campaign.

Why not, I thought.  At least it will be something to blog about! I was not disappointed: plenty of material. Nor was I all that shocked by what I heard there. Mostly just deeply unsettled.

Outside the Mutualité, where the event was held, we were handed fliers that ranged from the far right to the center-right, from the political to the bizarrely non-political, calling for us to join a manifestation against the EU, to join Jean-Marie Le Pen's "Patriotic Union," accusing Villiers of getting too close to the UMP (the party of Chirac, Sarkozy, and Villepin), an anti-abortion pamphlet, and a magazine advocating zero consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.   

Once we got inside, we found ourselves in a giant "Go France!" pep rally: kids dancing around onstage to a techno Fur Elise in red, white, and blue t-shirts reading Je Heart P2V and just plain P2V, people waving flags like they were on the barricades at the Les Mis finale. 

To give you an idea of where to situate "P2V," take this pithy little comment I overheard waiting on line to get inside the Mutualité:

"Ségo has been bought, Sarkozy is garbage, and Le Pen," the speaker's eyes glimmering with gleeful transgression, "is a bit too far to the left."

Characterising Villiers as to the right of Le Pen seems a bit extreme to me; from what I know of the two, Villiers seems more like Le Pen without the blatant racism and anti-Semitism, without the sinister smirk and cigar.  On the contrary, Villiers has the air of a rather intelligent French lumberjack.  Imposingly tall and with the rough face of a peasant, Villiers is an entertaining speaker, funny, passionate and, even, compassionate.  He professes to care not only about the elite, but the workers, and wants to do for France what he's done for the Vendée, as several of his supporters, who spoke, emphasized: make sure that everyone who wants a job has one,  and can increase his pouvoir d'achat  [is that "buying power" in English?].

But this humor and avuncular compassion, sadly, does not allow for the least difference of origin or sexual preference.  It's too bad.  I don't want to dislike him. Everything about Villiers calls out to be liked and respected.  Except, and this is an enormous except, for the signs decorating the room laying out his political opinions.

At first glance they seem to hold water in a libertarian sort of way that seemed potentially valid to me:  "Vous préférez l'artisanat à l'assistanat? Moi aussi.  Villiers: le bon sens" [You prefer the artisan class to the welfare class? Me too. Villiers: common sense"] or "Ras-le-bol des charges, des taxes, des impots? Moi aussi. [Sick of charges and taxes? Me too]" Then you get a little further on and you see something like "Vous etes pour l'immigration zéro? Moi aussi,"  which begins to give me pause, being something of an immigrant myself, although my companion assures me that writers and college professors from rich countries are not the immigrants Villiers wants to keep out of France.  It's true that the present policy of mass immigration and regularisation doesn't seem to be working for France, but that's just as much the fault of the French model that demands complete assimilation.  "Je ne crois pas que l'immigration soit une chance ni pour les Français, ni pour les immigrés! [Immigration is not a good thing, neither for France nor for the immigrants] " Villiers proclaimed. Well, I couldn't help thinking, perhaps a first step might be to relax the strict distinction between who is French, and who is an immigrant...

But my stomach really turned when I saw the signs reading "Vous etes contre le mariage homo? Moi aussi. [You're against gay marriage? Me too]" That's when I really started to feel like I was at a gathering of the descendants of Maurras and Barrès, and all the anti-Dreyfusards who would not have  welcomed me into their midst at the turn of the last century.  To me, the signs against gay marriage seemed excessive and out of place, amongst the complaints at the Socialist overtaxing of the worker and support of the unemployed.

They did, however, make sense once I stepped back and considered that Villiers's slogan is "La France à 100%," leaving no room in the ratio for anything foreign or "deviant"--as in, not only do you have to be white to be French, you also have to be straight, and you have to view all alternatives to the traditional French family structure as un-French. 

In my experience, a nation is comprised of its citizens, and the character of such a nation ought to reflect any evolution of its citizens and their mores.  The laws have to keep up with the times,  not hearken back nostalgically to some idealised, Edenistic era when France was white and Catholic and , ahem, buggery happened in private and never led to marriage.  Society is just not that homogeneous anymore-- and would you really want it to be? Looking around at all the white faces, I felt as if the room had been ethnically cleansed. And with all due respect to M. de Villiers, his supporters, and my conservative friend, frankly, it creeped me out.

Although I doubt the Villiers campaign will lead to the Elysée Palace, I do like some of the values he is trying to bring to the fore, like, for example, the idea of restoring pride in being French to the French.  I stood amongst the waving flags and felt national pride for my adoptive country, wondering why it is that when I hear the Star Spangled Banner played, it feels irrelevant, American wars, American foundational myths, but when I hear the Marseillaise I fall for it hook, line, and sinker; it's not the Revolution that does it for me (more honor in being imprisoned in the Bastille than storming it, in my view), but more the idea of being a part of the country that produced Hugo and Cézanne, the fact that Georges Seurat was born around the corner from where I sleep half the time, that George Sand stalked these streets dressed as a man, that Emile Zola looked at Paris and wrote the Rougon-Macquart series, that Stein turned language upside-down from her apartment in the rue de Fleurus.

He is right to try to encourage the French to emerge from their constant self-flagellation, their "juin 40 mentale." It's just that I find disturbing his willingness to exclude those who would like to share in that pride.  My warm and fuzzy feelings for France as my adoptive country are almost certainly those that any immigrant by choice feels for their adoptive country, and spending a few hours amongst people for whom "proud to be French" also means excluding others from that pride based on their racial and sexual identity seriously undermined my patriotic buzz.

What do you all think? I know it's not "cool" to be patriotic, but the sentiment can't be entirely negative, as long as it's not being used as an excuse to blow someone else up or keep them from moving into one's country. 

Maitresse at the rally, looking around at the crowd, somewhere between shocked, appalled, speechless, and bemused

Comments

[AliceAlice]

Maitresse, I find what you've written here so thought-provoking, and you really do put into words a lot of my own thoughts and feelings about what it's like to live in France as an American expat... There are so many of us, after all, and I know that my story as an American who fell in love with French language and culture is certainly not original and unique. But I guess I have to remind myself that as an individual, I am unique...

As is each citizen of every country! I agree with your views wholeheartedly, and I think I too am shocked by what some more conservative politicians have to say in this country, as well as in our own country across the ocean... I agree that politics should represent a looking-forward, and be a sign of OUR times, not one of harking-back, and looking to past ideals.

I feel I was given a fairly conservative education, ironically, in a Catholic household, for the most part... And yet I consider myself very openminded, and tolerant -- of course, far from perfect, and I have my moments where I feel like I have perhaps some undertones in my character that I wouldn't necessarily be very proud of sharing... But I'm human, too. So far from perfect. But I guess I feel like every culture (and every religion, every sexuality), every nation has something to offer and share, and that we have to see the strengths and weaknesses of all, instead of just labeling and stereotyping and therefore excluding one culture or another from immigration into a country like France. People come here for many different reasons, as so many of the first immigrants from Europe traveled to the New World several centuries ago... And these cultures blend together to make a country what it is today, which includes a mix of everyone.

I don't think I'm expressing myself very well, but I hope you see what I mean!

Really stimulating post in any case... I thoroughly enjoyed reading it!

[Alice]

I just wanted to add that you seemed very fair in your assessment of the party's views as well...

[rhino75]

The man, and everything he stands for, is completely objectionable. There's nothing reasonable about him. NOTHING. He's a clown, and a dangerous clown at that. Thankfully, unless things go horribly wrong, h doesn't standa chance.

[pam]

My time outside of the US has made me quite the American patriot, despite my - um, let's try the word LOATHIHG - yes, loathing for the Bush administration. When roped in to conversations about patriotism, I remember a quote by Howard Zinn in which he reminds us, "Patriotism is love for one's country, not love for one's government." Hallelujah to that, I say, and there is much to love about America, deep flaws and all.

I think that often, people get whipped in to nationalistic frenzies, mistaking nationalism for patriotism - my country is better than yours vs. there are things about my country that I love and am proud of. Going around shouting You-Ess-Ay is a reflection of that bad sort of nationalism. Politics seems to love that stuff and it's a handy tool for exclusionism, useful for propagating anti-immigration sentiments.

Some time back in a fit of crabbiness over Austria's anti-immigration campaigning, I thought it might be "fun" to go down to the campaign HQ and volunteer myself for deportation. "I'm an immigrant, so do you want me out?" "Not you," they'd say. "Then WHO, exactly?" I'd ask, outing this sentiment for exactly what it is.

Oops. Three para comment. What a rambler.

[Mlle Smith]

I find the issue of immigration in France a very confusing one. This idea of exploiting a country (former colony) and its resources, leaving it barren, unstable, economically depleted, or in chaos, and then withdrawing from the country...and THEN attempting to bar citizens (the exploited) of these former colonies from entering the country that has profited from the exploitation of these "colonies"...this attempt to bar the previously colonized from sharing in the wealth that has been accumulated as a result of this exploitation...I find it bizarre. And confusing.

I understand that they simply cannot accommodate all people with their social/economic model. But, there is also a problem with exploiting...withdrawing...and then barring the exploited. There is something...fundamentally inhumane about this. I don't know what the solution is, but it cannot be to simply turn a blind eye to the countries you (France) previously exploited...

On another note, I don't understand the controversy over marriage between homosexual couples. I know it sounds clinical, but I simply can't help but approach the issue "logically". Perhaps it's because I have little to no connection to (or concern for) the issue. I think it's great that France and many other countries throughout the EU allow for legal unions of both heterosexual/homosexual couples. In this way, couples that love and live in a committed partnership are allowed to reap the same benefits (legal and economic) as any other "traditional couple".

But, marriage is essentially a religious union. Even those that don't believe in religion and still enter into a marriage...the marriage itself is still a "union under God" proffered by the government. For anyone to ask that something considered an "abomination" be recognized by any religion...I just think this is highly offensive and is essentially "political correctness" (if that's a real term) gone awry.

I think the original intent of the "gay marriage movement" was to ensure that gay couples received the same legal/economic benefits as "traditional couples". (And I think this should be the case for any committed couple.) Perhaps to secure "legal unions" the GM movement had to demand marital unions...because there really was no other model available and legally speaking, you always overstate your desired outcome in a suit knowing that the courts will likely offer less...but that "less" can be a highly desirable outcome (I hope this was clear...in a suit, you ask for 500 million if you really want 10 million in damages...if you had asked for 10 million in damages, the court will likely rule for 2.5 million in damages...meaning the courts will almost always offer less than what was requested).

But, we have legal unions now. I don't understand how anyone could now demand that any gov't (and their attached religions) go one step further and honor/recognize what most religions see as an abomination. This is bizarre to me.

I don't know if this is the argument that religious people use in their arguments against gay marriage. I haven't a clue. The issue just always struck me as bizarre because marriages are religious unions...no matter how we slice it. It's a religious unions sanctioned by our gov'ts.

In the US, no matter how much of a "melting pot" we pride ourselves on being, we are a Christian country (primarily Protestant). This issue is just very illogical to me.

Thank you for this post, Lauren. I really relished the opportunity to learn more about the politics of France and the issues at stake. :0)

[Maria Noland]

I disagree with Mlle Smith. I don't think the issue of le mariage homo is about personal beliefs. From a religious aspect gay marriage makes no sense at all, but it isn't a secular government's place to try to impose religious dogma, no matter how "logical" it may seem to believers, no matter if those believers comprise the majority of the electorate or not. Even if gay couples had the same rights and same tax benefits with civil unions (which they don't) as their married heterosexual counterparts, that they are not allowed to partake in marriage itself is discriminatory, a "separate but equal" faulty philosophy that doesn't convene modern times.

And also I would like to believe that the French far right could restore a sort of patriotism in French hearts, but this "patriotism" of which Le Pen and de Villers constantly talk is, I'm afraid, only an ethnocentric façade to promote their zero-immigration, anti-European Union, anti-modern times and values philosophy that ends in alienation of much of France's inhabitants. There are many things that the French can be proud of, but the argueil of racist, anti-globalization politicians is definitely not one of them.

[negrito]

bah who cares anyhow ? this guy will not even get to the 500 signatures that are necessary to enter the real competition.. :)

[David]

I agree that we french should stop complaining about ourselves. The problem is that, because of hum... leftists movement, as soon as a frenchman is proud of his country he is accused of being racist. I firmly believe that some groups such as SOS Racisme, or le MRAP turned french fierté in a kind of shame or something that should not be said. That's pathetic. Unlike Maitresse I pretty much appreciate that americans have flags at home, in their garden, or even in shows as Springsteen did back in the 80's (OK, I was not born then... but still). Why, if a french comes with a flag at his window or in a show -except for the football - then he is labelled as a racist ? I think it is a shame that this do-gooders (bien pensants, ??? je sais pas en englais) turned our own pride in something we should be ashamed of. The red/blue/white flag belongs to all of us, and not only to those who share Le Pen or Villiers's vues. And so does this country.

Nonetheless, I am pretty much fine with le bon Villiers staying were he is (below 5%) but I think we should no longer accept those destroying our identity while they pretend to protect it.

David

[Mlle Smith]

David: I'm happy that you mentioned this...pride in one's country being interpreted as racism, etc.

The same is the case for Germany and I found it difficult to understand why the people there were conditioned to be so ashamed of their nationality.

After all, I'm from the US and God knows our history here is far more tainted (thought not always as recent), yet we fly the red, white, and blue every chance we get...It just seems hypocritical to me for me to assume that others (no matter their history or how recent their history is)...it seems hypocritical for me to deny anyone else the right to pride in their nationality, etc...if I am to have pride in mine.

If that's the case, I (and every other American) should be ashamed of being an American...our history is f'd up here...but I am not ashamed of being an American. I hope that this guilt or compulsion people have to interpret this pride as racism...I hope this is a thing of the past one day. :0)

[John Baker]

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of the country in which they live or experience guilt for what is done by past or present governments. Where you happen to be born is a complete accident. Governments are only concerned with their own welfare. If looking after a certain group in society will produce votes, then you may receive some help and encouragement. Otherwise forget it.
Devices like flags and concepts like patriotism are always to be questioned. They are points in our existence which allow those who would rule over us the leverage to exploit us

[Delphine]

Funny, I swear I just got back from Paris this morning! And having watched the news and following some of the discussions that the various candidates had on different shows, plus conversations with me cousins etc. And boom I read your blog upon my arrival. I agree with you 100%. I understand that people love their country etc...I have no problem with that BUT it becomes problematic for me when "the love for one,s country" comes with the cost of denying others of their rights, or the existence of the so-called "other" within that society...it is just wrong and I don't understand it. With said, I live in Montreal and the Quebecois have similiar issues as the French (with immigration etc) BUT thank god!! same-sex marriage is legal here in Canada.

[DDJ]

I appreciate that you've taken a more open-minded view of de Villiers' than most "left-leaning" people generally would. More often, people who disagree with conservative positions tend to dismiss them outright as completely intolerant and unworthy of any consideration, despite the generally acceptable goals (national pride to a degree, social stability, etc.) Tolerance is a two-way street - if one's going to preach it, one has to be open to opposing views - so it's great that you were able to provide a good accounting of the event minus any seething hate towards his viewpoints. All that said, I tend to the right, but wouldn't vote for the guy myself. I've found the recent Segolene gaffes somewhat entertaining, however.

As an aside, I'm sort of in the reverse position of you. I'm heading back to grad school next year in a US program that will consist of roughly 40% foreigners. Even in the couple of days I've had to meet with everyone who's been accepted so far, it's really given me an unexpected boost in pride. I've heard ten different stories from Indians, Chinese, and one German guy, all of whom have developed a certain love for US society, and have made an active decision to live it for at least the next two years of their lives. It really helps a native-born resident to take notice of everything that gets taken for granted.

You should check out Azure once in a while. There's a long review of the new Pryce-Jones book there right now. Or if you're daring, try Commentary, although the Schoenfeld piece might be difficult to read. ;)

[schuey]

i'm so relieved ;)