What's Missing From the Debate About Pro-Life Democrats
Tuesday, 25 April 2017 14:34
Crockett writes: "Sanders, along with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez, took some heat last week for making a stop on the DNC's 'unity tour' to support Heath Mello - the Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, who turns out to have either sponsored or voted for a long list of anti-abortion bills during his time in the state legislature."
Democrat Heath Mello, who has sponsored and voted for anti-choice legislation, is running for mayor of Omaha. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
What's Missing From the Debate About Pro-Life Democrats
By Emily Crockett, Rolling Stone
25 April 17
Democrats must learn the right lessons from the recent kerfuffle over supporting anti-abortion candidates
ince we're apparently doomed to repeat 2016 until the heat death of the universe, Democrats are fighting again about Bernie Sanders and women's rights. Sanders, along with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez, took some heat last week for making a stop on the DNC's "unity tour" to support Heath Mello – the Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, who turns out to have either sponsored or voted for a long list of anti-abortion bills during his time in the state legislature.
Mello is within striking distance of unseating the Republican incumbent mayor of Omaha, so he may have seemed to the DNC like a good poster boy for how Democrats can reclaim political power in red states. But in light of his voting record, many advocates argued that Democrats were treating women's basic reproductive freedom as an acceptable bargaining chip to try to win elections in Republican-leaning areas. Again.
They wondered why it was OK for Sanders, that self-styled champion of progressivism, to shrug off Mello's abortion record by saying, "I am 100 percent pro-choice, but not every candidate out there has my views 100 percent of the time" – while blasting Georgia Democratic congressional candidate Jon Ossoff as "not progressive" because he didn't use the words "income inequality" on his website.
They wondered when Democrats, beyond Sanders, will live up to their own 2016 platform – which, by calling for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment and the restoration of federal funding for abortion, implicitly recognized abortion as an economic justice issue for poor women in particular. They wondered if Democrats will ever stop automatically treating reproductive freedom like a mere "social issue," and start recognizing it as critical to women's economic and social equality.
A number of commentators said these concerns were not just overblown, but also impractical for a party that wants to win elections. Panelists on Morning Joeargued that Democrats have "forgotten how to win," and that they'll shrink their tent unnecessarily if they insist on ideological "purity tests" for abortion. On Meet the Press Sunday, Chuck Todd challenged Nancy Pelosi on whether it's possible to be both pro-life and a Democrat. "Of course," she said – predictably, given that she has plenty of self-identified pro-life Democratic colleagues in the House.
But the idea that the Democratic Party is somehow "excluding" pro-life Democrats if it takes a hard line against abortion restrictions misses something incredibly important. And if Democrats want to win in 2018, and make good on their commitment to protect reproductive rights, and avoid having the same circular fights over and over again, they need to learn the right lessons from this mini-debacle.
For many Americans and politicians alike, "being pro-life" is an identity. It's a moral worldview. That moral worldview often – but, crucially, not always – includes a commitment to outlawing or restricting abortion.
Believe it or not, while about 44 percent of Americans tell Gallup pollsters that they're "pro-life," only 28 percent of Americans actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion. When you give people the option to say whether they're pro-choice, pro-life, both or neither, more Americans say "both" or "neither" than either "pro-choice" or "pro-life."
We get such conflicted and wide-ranging responses to abortion polling because many Americans feel morally ambivalent about abortion. But for the vast majority of Americans, that moral ambivalence doesn't translate into a desire to outlaw abortion, or to put medically unnecessary legal barriers in a woman's way to try to stop her from getting one.
According to a Vox/PerryUndem abortion poll I reported on last year, most Americans have no idea that states are proposing or passing hundreds of new anti-abortion laws every year. But when they learn about those laws – like the admitting privileges or ambulatory surgical center requirements that closed about half of all Texas abortion clinics – and what they actually do to restrict abortion, solid majorities oppose virtually all of the major abortion restrictions pollsters asked about. (The one exception was parental notification requirements.)
But for the modern pro-life movement, and for most Republicans in office, erecting these legal barriers is pretty much the whole point of being a pro-life lawmaker. Their ultimate goal is to outlaw all abortion. The intermediate goal is not to reduce abortions through better birth control access, but to make life more difficult for doctors who perform abortions, and women who seek them, in the hopes that more women who have unintended pregnancies will just decide to carry them to term – despite clear research showing that once a woman has decided to get an abortion, she very rarely changes her mind.
But not every lawmaker who calls themselves "pro-life" shares these goals, especially when it comes to Democrats. Heath Mello now insists that while his faith guides his "personal views," as mayor he "would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care." If Mello is true to his word, he'd be a "pro-life Democrat" like Joe Biden and Tim Kaine – one who has personal moral qualms about abortion, but still firmly believes that the government has no business telling women and doctors what to do about it.
Still, pro-choice advocates have good reason to be skeptical of Mello from a pure policy perspective. It's not clear why Mello voted for multiple abortion restrictions from 2009 to 2011 in the state legislature, but now vocally defends Planned Parenthood on the campaign trail. Sure, the same can't be said for Mello's Republican opponent – incumbent mayor Jean Stothert, who opposes abortion rights – but that doesn't mean pro-choice advocates can expect Mello to actively defend their position.
And right now, given the constant barrage of hostile state lawmaking and court battles, active defense is the minimum requirement to protect reproductive rights in America. That's why many pro-choice groups have started going on the offense, from proposing laws that make it easier to access abortion to having women tell their personal abortion stories in public to fight stigma.
As Perez has now made abundantly clear, the Democratic Party supports abortion rights and opposes unnecessary restrictions, full stop. But to prevent this kind of kerfuffle in the future, the conversation should move away from bickering about who is a "pro-life Democrat" and whether they should be excommunicated from the party. Instead, it should focus very specifically on what those "pro-life Democrats" stand for. Every pro-life politician should be able to explain, in detail, exactly which restrictions – if any – they would ever find it acceptable for the government to impose on women seeking abortions or on doctors who perform them.
FOCUS | Our Revolution's Job: Transforming the Country
Tuesday, 25 April 2017 11:55
Galindez writes: "Sunday afternoon, as Bernie Sanders was touring mostly red states with newly elected DNC chairman Tom Perez, hundreds of groups held meetings all over the country to launch new chapters in the next phase of Bernie's new group, 'Our Revolution.'"
Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez walk past each other during their 'Come Together and Fight Back' tour at the James L. Knight Center on Wednesday in Miami, Florida. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Our Revolution's Job: Transforming the Country
By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
25 April 17
unday afternoon, as Bernie Sanders was touring mostly red states with newly elected DNC chairman Tom Perez, hundreds of groups held meetings all over the country to launch new chapters in the next phase of Bernie’s new group, “Our Revolution.”
Our Revolution now has over 1,000 local groups throughout the country. Many of the groups have been successful already in their efforts to transform the Democratic Parties in their states. Nebraska, for example, is led by Our Revolution board member Jane Kleeb, who founded Bold Nebraska, a progressive political group that spearheaded landowner resistance to the Keystone Pipeline in Nebraska. Jane was the first Our Revolution member to be elected state chair.
Kelly Collison, who started the Michigan for Bernie Sanders Facebook page in 2015 and was a key player in his grassroots campaign, was elected the party’s Progressive Caucus Chair.
“As a Progressive and member of the Michigan Democratic Party, I believe we should be a party that finds strength in change, diversity, and inclusion,” she said in a statement posted on the Michigan for Revolution page. “I believe our party needs a change from the ground up and I’m ready to work for that change.”
In Colorado, Morgan Carrol won the state chair race with 90% of the vote after being endorsed by Our Revolution. In Washington State, Tina Podlodowski unseated a four-term incumbent state chair with the backing of supporters of Bernie Sanders. There are other examples throughout the country, and some states are still in the process of reorganizing.
The biggest prize, California, has a state party chair election in May. Our Revolution is backing Kimberly Ellis, a San Francisco-area party activist who runs Emerge California, a group that trains Democratic women to run for office. Back in January, Our Revolution led a massive effort to turn supporters out in California’s district level caucuses. Our Revolution claims they won at least 650 seats of the 1,120 available. Those delegates will vote in May on the new party chair.
On Sunday national leaders of Our Revolution met in Maryland and live-streamed a presentation to local groups meeting throughout the country. The event, billed as the “State of the Revolution,” opened with the group’s executive director, Shannon Jackson, thanking everyone for staying active in Our Revolution.
The first speaker gave an overview of how Our Revolution has evolved in Maryland. The president of UNITE HERE local 7 Hospitality Workers Union in Baltimore, Roxie Herbekian, laid out the vision of the Maryland chapter of Our Revolution. Herbekian, who was a Sanders delegate to the Democratic National Convention, described a vision for Maryland “where children don’t go to bed hungry and get a free public education, including college. A state of Maryland where African-American men don’t have to fear being in the hands of law enforcement, where women earn dollar for dollar the same amount as their male counterparts. A state of Maryland where immigrants are valued for their contributions to our communities and not demonized and ripped away from their families.” She described a Maryland where laws protect our environment for future generations and where the wealth is not concentrated in the hands of the few and where there are real living wage jobs.
Herbekian then explained the structure of the state organization before the chair of the National Board, Larry Cohen, gave a national overview. Cohen, the former national president of the Communications Workers of America, introduced the national board of directors, four of whom spoke during the program. The board includes former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, former NAACP president Ben Jealous, Nebraska Democratic Party chair Jane Kleeb, and actress and environmental leader Shailene Woodley.
After introducing the board, Cohen laid out a national vision, one where we don’t just play defense opposing Trump, but where we fight for change that we believe in. Cohen said he used to be a car guy and that we are “looking through the windshield, not the rearview mirror.”
Cohen said that hundreds of local groups were tuning into the live stream, ranging from 15 people in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, to big groups is Sarasota, Florida. Cohen described the job of the national Our Revolution staff. He said their number one priority is to support local groups. Larry said there were three main areas of focus for local groups. First, issues: local groups can take the lead on organizing around issues that improve their communities and not wait for leadership from a dysfunctional government in Washington. Second, he described electoral work, supporting candidates and ballot measures. While the national office will endorse candidates, they envision a process where the local groups lead in that process. Our Revolution will be recruiting and training candidates all over the country for all levels of government. Third, Cohen described party building, not just in the Democratic Party but also outside the party. Our Revolution will work to transform the party from the inside and the outside in every county in America.
The job of firing up the crowd and viewers went to former Ohio State senator Nina Turner. Turner opposed calling herself a “Mother Jones kind of girl. Mother Jones once said she would pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living, and this is how this black girl magic rolls at all times.” Turner said they understand that Our Revolution can not be run from Washington. She described a process where endorsements will come from the local communities, where the groups are closer to the issues and the candidates. A true grassroots structure, not just in name only.
Turner reminded us that this is our moment. “The darkness we are feeling right now is not a tomb, baby, it is a womb. We have to push and breathe, we have to protest and plan, and we have to persevere. We can’t just be out there protesting. Protesting is a beautiful thing, but we need some folks on the planning side, and that is where Our Revolution comes in, because we need to win elections so that we are pushing political policy. We are going to push and breathe, baby. We will protest, and we will plan, and we will persevere.”
Assemblyman Mike Connolly took the stage as an example of a candidate who ran a progressive campaign and defeated longterm incumbents. “No money Mike,” as he was nicknamed in 2012 during his first campaign, ran as an independent and lost, while getting 26% of the vote. In 2016 he ran for the Democratic nomination and beat the incumbent, who had been serving since 1993.
Next came the first Latina woman elected to the State Assembly in Nevada, Lucy Flores, who described her rise from a troubled family. She talked about her probation officer, the first person to believe in her and give her the guidance she needed to turn her life around. Flores went to law school after being introduced to the system as a troubled youth. Flores was elected two years after she first got involved in politics in 2008. Flores’s rise shows that anyone can get involved and make a difference in their community.
Our Revolution is also taking a leadership role in the sanctuary movement. Staff member Basilisa Alonso spoke about the group’s sanctuary program, making the connections between sanctuary for immigrants and other issues. “We can’t have true sanctuary when African Americans are mistreated by the police; we can’t have sanctuary when the government is seizing Native American land; we can’t have sanctuary when the rights of the LGBTQ community are violated; and we can’t have true sanctuary when the people who need healthcare the most are denied access.”
Former NAACP president Ben Jealous wrapped things up. “Let us be clear; this is not just about defense. This is about offense. The best defense, the best resistance, is a powerful offense. We are here to pass the $15 an hour minimum wage from coast to coast; we are here to pass Medicare for all from coast to coast; we are here to end mass incarceration from coast to coast, and to root out corruption and to pass public financing of campaigns from coast to coast. This is what Bernie Sanders meant when he said “not me, us.” To start your own Our Revolution chapter, or to find one in your area, go to www.ourrevolution.com.
Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott moved to Des Moines in 2015 to cover the Iowa Caucus.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
For First Time, a US President Backs a Fascist France
Tuesday, 25 April 2017 08:49
Cole writes: "It is a sad day for France, and for the world, that such a hateful person - a neo-Fascist - is in the running to be president."
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
For First Time, a US President Backs a Fascist France
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
25 April 17
hile she is highly unlikely to win the run-off presidential election on May 7 against the Bill Clinton of France, Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen managed to come in second in the first round on Sunday. She came ahead of the leaders of both major French political parties, the Socialists and the Gaullists. It is a sad day for France, and for the world, that such a hateful person– a neo-Fascist— is in the running to be president.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt hated fascism and was determined to defeat it, even if it meant allying with Joe Stalin of the Soviet Union.
During World War II, Germany occupied northern France and installed a right wing puppet government in the south of the country at Vichy, led by Marshal Henri-Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun in WW I.
Roosevelt despised the Vichy, and ultimately his troops defeated it. [Roosevelt was the one who pressed for an invasion of Vichy-held North Africa. US troops took heavy fire during Operation Torch in Algeria e.g. Some “82,600 of the invasion force was U.S. Army personnel. Ninety-six percent of the 1,469 casualties were American.” It was the remnants and children of people like those Vichy soldiers who fired on and killed American GIs who formed the National Front of Le Pen.]
Today we are presented with the spectacle of the American president, Donald J. Trump, praising the Neo-Fascist National Front candidate, Marine LePen. It would be like FDR cozying up to Marshal Petain.
Trump said, “Le Pen is “strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France.”
We are living in an alternate universe not so different from Philip K. Dick’s “Man in a High Castle.” The Nazis won after all.
Le Pen’s platform includes denying French Jews the right to hold dual French-Israeli citizenship. The National Front has moderated the anti-Semitic rhetoric of its founder, but let’s face it, they don’t like Jews very much, and French Jews are alarmed by the outcome of the election. Le Pen recently denied the responsibility of France for the round-up of Jews in the 1940s, even though there is plenty of historical documentation for it.
Le Pen’s wounded national pride, the seed of her platform, drives her to seek negotiations with the EU over a referendum on membership. In any case, she says, France will “recover” four areas of “sovereignty”: monetary, legislative, territorial, economic.
Here’s her security platform:
Massive build-up of the police, disarming the slums. Building 40,000 new prison cells. Restore borders, keep out all but 10,000 immigrants a year. Breaking Muslim fundamentalist networks in order to eradicate terrorism.
She also has a re-industrialization plan that will depend, she says, on “Smart protectionism” and “Economic patriotism”.
She wants to leave the NATO command. Her war department budget will grow to 2% of GDP and 3% by the end of five years.
Hatred of the 5 million French Muslims is central to her program, even thought the majority of French Muslims are not religious.
It is like she plagiarized from Trump. Or maybe it is the other way around and Steve Bannon, Trump’s Brain, has been studying far right European neo-Fascists as a blueprint for America.
It is a sad day when all those millions of American veterans who served in the European theater during WW II have their memory besmirched by the reemergence of fascism, in the White House and in French politics. How many Americans died to prevent a fascist take-over here and to end the Vichy in France itself.
This Spring, Fight for Our Precious Planet and Join the Climate March
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6801"><span class="small">Eve Ensler, Guardian UK</span></a>
Monday, 24 April 2017 13:42
Ensler writes: "Let our fight for planet Earth bring forth a global spring. Now more than ever we need a renewal in our dedication to a world where women, and indeed, all of life, triumph over destruction and the forces of anti-life."
Author and playwright, Eve Ensler. (photo: Annabel Clark/Guardian UK)
This Spring, Fight for Our Precious Planet and Join the Climate March
By Eve Ensler, Guardian UK
24 April 17
The same forces that are crushing women are destroying the planet. They must be defeated, and the march is an important next step in that battle
t doesn’t matter how many winters I endure, I am never less astounded by the arrival of spring. Suddenly, green shoots and the hint of daffodil yellow start breaking through the muddy earth. Birds sing. The air is sweet. It’s a time of renewal – one that is so desperately needed for our planet and our politics.
The Earth, our mother, is the body that feeds us, nurtures us, inspires us. In more than three months, Trump and his government have begun a process to remove as many protections for the Earth and for women as they can. They are willing to destroy the Earth and, ultimately, threaten the people she feeds and gives life to, in order to take care of their immediate desires. The long-term consequences are irrelevant in their minds.
Many of the terms for climate destruction and violence against women are interchangeable: extraction, rape, plunder, plowing, battery and excavation. But the similarities don’t end there. Many of those who don’t believe in climate change are very often the same as those who do not trust the stories and reports of women who have been harassed, battered and raped.
Even when more than 97% of climate scientists warn us of the same thing we don’t believe them. More than 10 women have come forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault – allegations he has denied – and we don’t believe them. It took 58 women coming forward for the stories about Bill Cosby to be believed. And there are still some who deny it. There are parallels between the high stakes scientists face in telling the truth and the potential ruin women face in coming forward to report their stories to families and courts.
Or perhaps it is not and never was about believing scientists and women. No, it is clear that land exploiters and rapists actually do know what they are doing. Often they are strategic about it. One only has to read the early Exxon reports on what extraction would do to climate change or listen to the Access Hollywood tape with Donald Trump to hear their swagger and pride in being able to do what they do because they have the power.
Whether it is pulling back EPA regulations and railing against the Clean Air Act or the mad dash for money through extraction and pipelines such as the Dakota Access pipeline. Whether it’s defunding Planned Parenthood or cutting funding to violence against women programs or reinstating and expanding the global gag rule so that healthcare for women across the world is devastated. All in the name of preventing abortion and being pro-life when their actions and policies are murderous and destructive in every direction.
For years I have been fighting rape, battery, incest, female genital mutilation and sex trafficking. The staggering numbers of one out of three women raped and beaten on the planet have occupied my life from morning till night. But the story is even bigger, the mindset more pervasive. We can’t separate out the pieces of the story.
Humanity is struggling to determine whether we will accept living and dying in a world where 0.1% of the people reign over our Earth, our bodies, our rights in service of their own interests and profit or whether we collectively rise and fight to transform this predatory paradigm.
But this morning as I awoke to the softness and generosity of spring, it was so clear and simple. Every struggle we have – women’s liberation, racial justice, economic inequality, immigration rights, gender rights, disability rights – happens on the Earth, because of the Earth.
So that’s why I am rising on 29 April with the climate march. Let our passion and fight for our mother be the energy and trajectory that fuels us and binds us to a larger struggle to end and transform this deadly and exploitative mindset.
Let our fight for the mother bring forth a global spring. Now more than ever we need a renewal in our dedication to a world where women, and indeed, all of life, triumph over destruction and the forces of anti-life.
Pottier writes: "The reason for this confidence is France's electoral system. French people love voting so much that they do it twice."
Marine Le Pen at a rally in Hénin-Beaumont, France, on Sunday. (photo: Charles Platiau/Reuters)
Marine Le Pen Doesn't Have a Chance
By Jean-Marie Pottier, Slate
24 April 17
Why there won’t be a Trump- or Brexit-style surprise in the French election.
e live in strange and unpredictable political times. Americans elected Donald Trump, and the British voted for Brexit, both defying the polls and the predictions of most experts. In such an age of uncertainty, all the confident predictions Monday morning that centrist Emmanuel Macron will defeat far-right Marine Le Pen in next month’s presidential election may give readers a familiar sinking feeling. But this time really is different. We’re not going to see another upset.
The reason for this confidence is France’s electoral system. French people love voting so much that they do it twice. The two candidates with the highest score in the first round go on to the runoff. There, in what must look quite extraordinary to American eyes, the candidate with the most votes actually wins. There’s a well-known French motto, “In the first round, we choose; in the runoff, we eliminate.” And this motto is what makes arithmetically so difficult to imagine the possibility of a Brexit- or Trump-style surprise in the runoff on May 7.
In the first round, Le Pen, of the National Front, came in more than 2 percentage points behind her opponent (21.5 percent versus 23.8 percent). To win in two weeks, she will need to pick up 900,000 more votes than Macron from the voters whose candidates did not get to the runoff or who didn’t bother to vote the first time around. This is not going to be easy judging by the latest polls, which proved rather reliable in the first round. The only candidate whose voters may lean toward Le Pen against Macron are that of Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, a partisan of national sovereignty who got only 4.9 percent of the vote.
The socialist candidate, Benoît Hamon, who was education minister for current President François Hollande, while Macron worked as an adviser at the Élysée Palace, has already asked his 6.4 percent of the voters to back Macron in the runoff. The conservative candidate François Fillon (20 percent), who harshly criticized Macron during the campaign, did the same, as did many leaders of the French right, even if a third of their voters might disobey on May 7.
The only question mark of the evening was the reaction of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the radical left candidate who got an unexpected 19.5 percent of the votes. Visibly affected by his narrow elimination from the runoff, he told his voters that “everyone knew what their duty was” and that he would not allow “one single vote for the far right” but did not endorse Macron. Nevertheless, the exit polls showed that 52 percent to 62 percent of his voters want to vote Macron in the runoff, compared with 9 percent to 12 percent for Le Pen and 29 percent to 36 percent abstaining.
All those endorsements amount to a new version of what’s become known as front républicain, the republican front: the phenomenon where, in a runoff in which the National Front has qualified, almost every political leader, from the far left to the conservative right, will endorse the candidate running against the National Front. Despite their differences, many French politicians are united in seeing the National Front as a danger for French democracy (a view held by 58 percent of the voters, according to a recent poll).
That republican front explains why, for example, the National Front has not managed to win a single congressional election in a one-to-one runoff since 1997 (it has done so only in what are known as triangulaires, runoffs in which three candidates are allowed to stand), in the Var, one of its bastions in the southeast. During the Hollande presidency, the National Front failed several times to win legislative elections in regions where it is very well-rooted, with up to 49 percent of the vote. It’s impossible imagine that it might get past 50 percent in the whole of France, given that Le Pen is still stuck below 10 percent in some of the biggest cities.
During the campaign, a theory put forward by scholar Serge Galam went viral in France, positing that Le Pen might win, not with a huge increase of her votes, but with a massive abstention from the anti-Le Pen voters. That apocalyptic prophecy became quite popular, and a look Monday morning at the Twitter hashtag #SansMoiLe7Mai (“I won’t be there on May 7”) may lead some to think that it has some truth in it.
But it runs against France’s electoral history. In May 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine’s father, got to the runoff, the turnout increased from 72 percent (albeit a very low turnout for France) to 80 percent, with a rush of anti-Le Pen voters to the polls. In the last regional elections, in December 2015, the National Front was the favorite to win two regions, the northern one (where Le Pen herself was running) and the Riviera (where her niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen was on the ballot). Each time, the turnout rose sharply in the second round, and three-quarters of the new voters chose to vote against the Le Pens.
All that political arithmetic explains why Macron is now 20 points ahead of Le Pen in the polls. By contrast, “remain” never had more than an 8-point lead over “leave” in the last two weeks of the Brexit campaign, and Hillary Clinton only had a 5-point lead (confirmed, by the way, by the popular vote) in the last days of her campaign. When the stakes are high, the French still turn up to vote, and vote against Le Pen.
In 2002, when Jacques Chirac, marred by financial scandals, was triumphantly re-elected with 82 percent against Jean-Marie Le Pen, a popular catchphrase of the runoff campaign on the left was “Rather a crook than a fascist.” In 2017, Macron probably won’t get a number that high, but the motto of the French electorate this time might be “Rather republican front than National Front.”
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.