**AHunter3—**Oh, your views are widely shared, all right. Just not widely enough. The Republicans tipped a close balance to their favor, fairly and squarely, though this time around, forty-something percent of the voters went for non-Republicans. It’s bad news for the next two years, but I’m not ready to give up on this country yet.
Mais si les États-Unis continuent de voter pour la droite, je serais heureux d’accompangner Stoid et toi en France!
Stoid wrote:
I’m sure it’s very pretty. But is it prettier than the Great Smokey mountains? Prettier than the Grand Canyon? Prettier than Yellowstone National Park? Or Pisgah National Forest? Or San Fransisco at twilight from the bay? Or the Northern Lights over Alaskan mountains? Or the beaches on the Outer Banks? Or Las Vegas on the strip at midnight?
France has Jean-Marie le Pen and the National Front. Bush and the Republicans are better.
Make the best of it where you are, mes biens amis.
We are just about in Godwin’s Law territory…
I wonder about this, though. Will he be able to shake his image as wooden and wishy-washy? True or not, he’s been stuck with it for some time. The Washington Post Magazine had what I thought was a pretty evenhanded article about him, but the author still seems to harbor doubts that he has changed.
I think you’re right that he’ll initially get the “he’s changed” stories, but there is still the great deal of backstory to him and the press, I think, will be looking for evidence that he’s still wooden and wishy-washy. Not to mention that the GOP will certainly be trying to spin it that way.
Just a thought. Of course, there’s a long way to go until the election.
Let me second what ElvisL1ves said. A holocaust revisionist got into a runoff for the Presidency of France. You’re welcome to go, but I’d like to disabuse you of the “Europe is so great, the US is so bad” deal. There’s good and bad everywhere.
I don’t think Le Pen is a Holocaust revisionist. He once said that the Holocaust was a “detail of history” ie not that important, not that it didn’t happen. But anyway while he is certainly a nasty piece of works he is less nasty than the likes of Falwell and Robertson in the GOP and has considerably less power to influence the government than either.
Right. That’s why I called him a revisionist rather than a denier. He downplays the importance of the Holocaust in order to soften it. His ex-wife has said he forbade his children from watching Holocaust documentaris.
I’m certainly no fan of Falwell or Robertson, but a brief review of Le Pen should show you that he’s more than just a “nasty piece of work” and certainly worse than the two idiots you compare him to. As for influence, let’s see how the National Front keeps polling in elections.
Anyway, the entire point was to point out that “moving to France” won’t get you much. It’s nice posturing, but it’s the product of a romantic imagination.
“That’s why I called him a revisionist rather than a denier.”
Well even a Holocaust revisionist is someone who denies commonly accepted facts about the Holocaust and AFAIK Le Pen doesn’t do that. To say that the Holocaust is a “detail of history” is a matter of opinion not fact and doesn’t count as revisionism.
"I’m certainly no fan of Falwell or Robertson, but a brief review of Le Pen should show you that he’s more than just a “nasty piece of work” "
Why don’t you provide that review? Le Pen seems to a standard right-wing immigrant-basher rather like Buchanan than Falwell or Robertson who are much more extreme.
“As for influence, let’s see how the National Front keeps polling in elections”
Well that’s just speculation about the future whereas Falwell and Robertson have a lot of power today. The fact is that despite his surprise appearance in the run-off Le Pen didn’t have a ghost of a chance of winning and he has little or no real power.
In any case I don’t agree with the “America is going to the dogs” school of thought either but it’s undeniable that right-wing extremists are more powerful in the US than in France.
Well, I don’t want to continue a hijack too much further, so this will be the last from my side.
Maybe it’s semantics, but dismissing the slaughter of 10 million people as “a detail” so understates things it’s a revision. Just because it’s opinion doesn’t mean it’s not revisionism. It could be his opinion it didn’t happen, but it would be denial.
OK. His ex-wife says he’s an out and out racist and he gladly tortured people as a paratrooper in Algeria. He proposed putting immigrants in camps before deporting them and said they were “submerging” France. I have no patience with Buchanan’s immigration views, but I’d like to see how they are “more extreme” than Le Pen.
I don’t think that’s a fact at all, in fact many people disagree with your statement. Chirac has even acknowledged that the issues Le Pen raised have to be addressed by his administration. Le Pen has moved French politics a little closer to his position.
“but dismissing the slaughter of 10 million people as “a detail” so understates things it’s a revision”
A “detail of history” to be precise. IIRC Le Pen said that what he meant was that if you wrote a 1000 page history of world war 2, the Holocaust would not get more than a couple of pages. I agree that Le Pen was intentionally being provocative but his statement is hardly comparable to the routine,vicious attacks by Falwell and co. on homosexuals, atheists,feminists, Muslims etc.
. “I have no patience with Buchanan’s immigration views, but I’d like to see how they are “more extreme” than Le Pen.”
I had said Le Pen was “rather like” Buchanan but much less extreme than Falwell and co. (my sentence wasn’t correctly written). Talk of immigrants “submerging” France is pure Buchanan; see his latest book.
As for the article you link it doesn’t claim that Le Pen has any real power which Falwell and co. do have today. It makes vague assertions about Le Pen having become more respectable which are rather dubious considering the overwhelming vote for Chirac in the second round and that Le Pen hadn’t really received that many more votes than usual in the first round (it was Jospin who had done badly partly because losing a lot of leftist votes to far-left parties). And it talks about the Chirac government moving to become tougher on immigration and crime which doesn’t sound that extreme. Again this is nothing compared to the Christian Right and their day-to-day influence on policy in the Bush administration and Congress.
OK. I guess that wasn’t my last post.
Which is pretty much the textbook definition of http://www.zundelsite.org/english/basic_articles/nutshell.html”]revisionism. He’s simply trying to say the Holocaust wasn’t that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
He specifically talks about excluding Muslims from France. Of course, that’s minor compared to the fact that he tortured Muslims in his former professional capacity.
Perhaps. But when a Holocaust revisionist talks of immigrants “submerging” a country and proposes a “special train” to move them, that’s pretty damned frightening.
Actually, I think it makes a pretty good case. You’ve made a lot of assertions, too. I’d like to see some cites. As for cites, here’s another: Le Monde commissioned a poll in May that found that half of France agrees with his hardline law and order polices and 28% agree “wholly or largely” with the rest of his views (which includes his revisionism.) Chirac, immediately after the election, promised to restore “law and order”. I don’t know what else you’d need to see Le Pen’s influence.
I’m not defending Falwell and Robertson, but I need to see a little more from you than a repeated assertion that Le Pen isn’t so bad compared to Falwell and Robertson.
I also meant to add that I think we’re generally of the same view that Falwell and Robertson are morons and they have influence. I guess I just don’t agree that Le Pen is less extreme or lacking influence. That’s all.
Perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree on issues of degree.
I can’t open your link but forget the semantics about what is revionism or not for the time being. I don’t know how saying that the Holocaust shouldn’t get more than a couple of pages in a WW2 history book is remotely comparable to, say, blaming 9-11 on homosexuals,ACLU etc like Falwell did. The two are in a completely different league.
“But when a Holocaust revisionist talks of immigrants “submerging” a country and proposes a “special train” to move them, that’s pretty damned frightening.”
Well Buchanan has been accused of Holocaust revisionism as well and uses similar immigrant-bashing images as well. Again Le Pen is about as extreme as Buchanan.
“Of course, that’s minor compared to the fact that he tortured Muslims in his former professional capacity.”
Actually torture was quite common in the Algerian war and it’s not surprising that Le Pen who fought there did it. It doesn’t say much about his ideology.
“I’d like to see some cites”
Well which of my facts do you doubt? Le Pen did indeed receive roughly the same percentage that he normally did though I don’t have a cite for it.
About Chirac moving to become tougher on crime and immigration there is nothing particularly alarming about this short of details about actual policy. After all “tough on crime” is a standard position in American politics as well.
So as a measure of influence this doesn’t compare with Falwell and co. who are respected members of the ruling party and regularly consulted on legislation, judicial nominees and the like.
Yes they are. But I get the feeling we rank them differently. Homosexuals are discriminated against and that’s horrible. The ACLU gets caricatured, thought that’s pretty par for the course in politics. Am I to understand that you consider that worse than deliberately downplaying the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews?
I’d be interested in a cite to something he’s said, if you don’t mind.
I guess it’s your prerogative to believe that torturing Muslims doesn’t betray anything about a belief system or is less egregious than making idiotic statements on The 700 Club. I don’t really know how to debate something like that, but I always tend to put torture above mean words even if the excuse for torture was “everybody was doing it”.
In other words, he has influenced French politics. I doubt we could quantify influence, but that’s irrelevant anyway. Your original comment was that Robertson and Falwell were nastier than Le Pen. Apparently you’re not swayed by evidence of Holocaust revisionism and torture, but I think it’s a pretty compelling case.
I don’t like Falwell or Robertson and I don’t like the Religious Right’s influence. But you seem locked in this position that Le Pen really isn’t that bad. He is and I think the evidence is there that he’s worse than Falwell or Robertson. Again, it’s perhaps a matter of degree but it’s a little surprising to hear the defenses of Le Pen’s torture and revisionism. I understand people’s values differ but saying the ACLU is responsible for the terrorist attack is disgusting (and he later was forced to apologize) but it pales in comparison with brushing off the multi-million person slaughter in death camps. That’s my case, take it as you will.
I’m sorry I even mentioned it. But Zoff has it right - the political atmosphere in France would certainly seem to be worse than the one in the US, even if the food is better.
The problem isn’t the Falwells and Le Pens of the world, anyway - we’ll always have haters and idiots around. The problem is the factors that cause such a number of people not to see them that way. Le Pen wouldn’t have won so many votes if there weren’t so many people willing to vote for him.
“Am I to understand that you consider that worse than deliberately downplaying the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews?”
Am I to understand that you consider saying that the Holocaust wouldn’t get more than a couple of pages in a WW2 history book is worse than blaming the ACLU and homosexuals for 9-11? Nonsense. I agree that that the first is provocative but the latter is sheer,raving lunacy and isn’t remotely comparable. I think you are the one downplaying Falwell’s remarks. They are much more than “caricature”
About Buchanan:
Here is something about his Holocaust revisionism:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/buchanan.shtml
He appears worse than Le Pen actually.
About torturing Algerians: I am not defending it all; it was terrible but it was a widespread French practice not some kind of personal Le Pen initiative. As such it says more about the French military at that time than Le Pen’s politics today. Still I agree that Le Pen has to bear responsibility for what he did but what he did 45 years ago tells us very little about the extent of his ideological extremism. You seem to be confusing personal nastiness with the latter.
As for the rest of it you haven’t shown that Le Pen has remotely the same influence as Falwell and co. Once again some rhetorical moves by Chirac on crime and immigration doesn’t equal the systematic influence that the Christian right has on the GOP.
Le Pen gained 17 percent of the French vote in last spring’s “primary” for Prime Minister, putting him in second place overall. Sounds pretty influential to me, at least compared to some preacher with a TV show.
Yes but that 17% doesn’t translate into much actual power whereas the “preacher” influenced who won the GOP primaries and in general the Christian Right are regularly consulted by Rove and others. A world of difference.
Paul Krugman wrote a great column after the French elections making basically the same point:
"Now for the important difference. Mr. Le Pen is a political outsider; his showing in Sunday’s election puts him into the second-round runoff, but he won’t actually become France’s president. So his hard-right ideas won’t be put into practice anytime soon.
In the United States, by contrast, the hard right has essentially been co-opted by the Republican Party — or maybe it’s the other way around. In this country people with views that are, in their way, as extreme as Mr. Le Pen’s are in a position to put those views into practice."
Absolutely. Saying the systematic slaughter of 10 million people is no big deal is much worse than saying that certain groups have secularized America and are partly responsible for a terrorist attack. I’m actually pretty surprised you would feel differently.
If you feel an idiot railing against secularization with a pporly reasoned stab at causality is worse than dismissing genocide as unimportant than we’re at loggerheads. I don’t know what else to say.
First, I’d say you can tell a lot about a guy by determining whether he’s ever tortured anybody. Second, the torture was the embodiment of a belief about France that led him to start the National Front when he felt the nation betrayed the military and the true French Republic by getting out of Algeria, so he torture and ideology are interconnected. Third, you said Falwell and Robertson were nastier than Le Pen. So personal nastiness is quite relevant.
I’ve shown you poll numbers and analysis from European commentators. You’re free to dismiss it but I’d note the irony of dismissing the BBC commentators then citing an American commentator as proof of your position. It’s arguable whether the influence is the same, if that’s even measurable. But the fact remains that he has influence, is a Holocaust revisionist, and a racist. That’s nastier than Falwell or Robertson.
OK as you say it’s pointless arguing about the relative nastiness of the two remarks so let’s drop it.
“you said Falwell and Robertson were nastier than Le Pen”
Let me clarify ( and it should have been reasonably clear) that I was referring to ideological nastiness or extremism. Let me give an example; some time back there were reports IIRC about Bob Kerrey having possibly commited atrocities against civilians while fighting in Vietnam. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the reports were true. Would that tell us much about Bob Kerrey’s ideology? Not really. Would it mean that Kerrey was more extreme than Falwell (who has presumably not commited any war crimes)? Of course not.
That’s not to say that Le Pen isn’t extremist (as I said a comparison with Buchanan would be appropriate). It’s just that his activities 45 years in Algeria don’t add anything of significance to our knowledge of his ideology today.
“It’s arguable whether the influence is the same, if that’s even measurable.”
No it’s not remotely arguable. Does Chirac consult Le Pen when making legislation? Does Chirac consult Le Pen when deciding judicial nominations. Does Chirac’s equivalent of Rove meet regularly with Le Pen’s people to keep them happy? I should have thought that the difference between being an isolated third party with no power and being a respectable constituency in the GOP would be obvious.
“I’ve shown you poll numbers and analysis from European commentators”
And even if we accept their analysis (which I don’t fully) it still doesn’t show that France is as extreme as the US when it come to right-wing nutcases. At best it shows that things moved a little in Le Pen’s direction. That’s not the same as saying that Le Pen now has the same influence as Falwell and co. in the US. Show me an analysis which claims that.