By “thinking the unthinkable”, Macron is trying to map the landscape of the post-viral world. He is also trying to extend the opportunist run of luck which made him President of the Republic in his late thirties — a run which had faltered before the coronovirus knocked the world off its axis.
In 2016-7 Macron “rode the wave” by spotting the opportunity offered by his boss, President François Hollande’s unpopularity and launching his own political career and party at the age of 38. Now he wants to climb aboard the post-Covid bandwagon, rather than be crushed by it.
“I’ve always relied on destiny,” he says at the end of the FT interview. “And deep down that’s the simplest thing to do. We must always be available for destiny.”
You can read that two ways — the arrogance of a man who is willing to abandon previous certainties to remain in power; or the intelligence and agility of a man who is willing to think ahead in the midst of an unprecedented crisis.
All the Macron achievements of the past three years — and there are many — look likely to be dwarfed or ruined by Covid-19. French unemployment had fallen sharply for the first time in a decade; there are suddenly nine million people on a temporary unemployment scheme (the most generous of its kind in the world with state funding of 80% of net salaries). How many of those jobs will survive the crisis?
All the main features of Macronomics have been made redundant or politically damaging.
The President who brought state spending under control? That is no longer much of a sales pitch when the French health service, despite its generous funding, has struggled to cope with the C-19 crisis.
The President who made French labour laws more flexible to allow France to thrive in a global world? That offers few advantages if globalism is to be rolled back.
The President who promised a stronger European Union and a robust Eurozone capable of surviving great crises? That will be an electoral curse if Covid-19 splits the EU-27.
Macron, as he points out in the interview, has always argued for European industrial and economic “sovereignty” to avoid Chinese and American domination in a global world. He can argue that this, at least, has proved correct.
That, however, is not the Macron portrayed by domestic opponents of Right and Left, who paint him as a “neo-liberal” or “ultra-capitalist” who does the bidding of his puppet-masters in “global finance”.
Macron 2020 is finding ways to abandon or recreate Macron 2017. He gropes towards a new definition of Macronomics. He calls for a new leap towards European unity and a new multilateral world order.
He is clear on Europe — “we are at a moment of truth”, either the EU becomes “more than a market” or it will cease to exist.
Much rides for Macron on the EU leaders’ summit tomorrow. He angered the Germans and Dutch by saying that mutually guaranteed European debt to help Italy, Spain and others post-crisis was the “only solution” to save the EU from populism and nationalism.
This is not the first time that Macron has appeared to undermine his own position by making dramatic public threats of this kind. If the Germans and Dutch reject the Macron ideas, he will be left looking weak and foolish.
The EU being the EU, the outcome this week will probably be neither black nor white. Other EU aid plans will be agreed and the French idea for a temporary system of mutual bonds will be carried over for discussion once the worst of the crisis is over. A Macron victory? He will spin it that way.
On the other questions, he was at his most vague and waffling but at least had the “humility” (a word that crops up a dozen times) to admit it.
“So I believe there will be some major anthropological changes which I am unable to describe, and I say this with a lot of humility, but there will be profound ones, I am sure … I believe that we are about to exit a world which was hyper-financialised … [but] there are some elements of global interdependence which force us to rethink a true governance and therefore multilateralism.”
Hmm. That needs a little more work, Monsieur le Président.
In his television address to the French nation last Monday, Macron also spoke of the need for a “re-founding” of traditional political ideas and arguments, starting with his own.
“We have been reminded of how vulnerable we are. Perhaps we had forgotten. Don’t let us say that this proves everything that we said before…We must abandon our well-trodden paths and ideologies and re-invent ourselves — me first and foremost.”
He went on to say that he planned to contact “all strands of our nation” in the weeks ahead to consider what such a “new foundation” might involve. This was interpreted in the French media as a Macron plan for a “government of national unity” — a phrase that he never used.
Sources close to the President suggest nonetheless that he might dissolve the government and appoint a new Prime Minister for a “rebuilding” phase after the worst of the crisis is over. Macron’s generally good relationship with his ex centre-Right prime minister, Edouard Philippe, has broken down in recent weeks. There have been “moments of tension” (English translation: “slanging matches”) when Macron accused the government of being too slow or incompetent.
In public opinion polls, both Macron and Philippe have received modest personal boosts but 32% of French people in an Opinonway survey last weekend said that they “distrusted” the government’s handling of the crisis, compared with 8% in Britain.
Given the US and UK governments’ greater evasions and mis-steps, this may seem rather unfair. But France is France, a country quick to blame and slow to praise.
Macron and his government have made mistakes. They were one or two weeks late in imposing a lockdown. They failed to provide sufficient tests and masks and were misleading about the reasons.
But they were very quick to introduce generous economic support for business and individuals. Thanks to rapid thinking and innovation, such as the use of medicalised high-speed trains to take gravely ill patients to less-affected parts of the country, the health system has more or less coped.
The demand for intensive care treatment, initially forecast at 14,500 places, reached 7,000 beds in early April but has since been falling back steadily. The number of deaths in France is following a somewhat lower curve than Italy or Spain. The mortality figures announced daily (now totalling 20,000) are more or less complete, including a grim toll in care homes (unlike the partial figures issued in some other countries).
Macron’s hopes of surviving the crisis politically have perhaps also been boosted by the lamentable performance of his principal likely rival in 2022, the far-right leader, Marine Le Pen. She has said everything and its opposite since the crisis began. Her confidence rating, never high, has fallen.
All the same, new times will create new politics and maybe new, unexpected challengers (as Macron was in 2016-7).
According to the senior ally I spoke to, President Macron knows that he must re-invent himself if he is to win a second term in 2022. He wants to be able to say that he, before others, grasped that life can never be quite the same again.
“If you look at our the last five presidents before Macron, only two were re-elected, Mitterrand and Chirac, and they both re-made themselves constantly,” the senior LREM figure said.
“Both Giscard and Sarkozy fell victim in part to global crises (the first oil shock and the 2008 financial crisis). They proved unable to re-invent themselves. Macron has at least understood that necessity. Will people buy it? I’m not so sure.”
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnyone who had any understanding of the potential dangers of globalization, and the entirely predictable shortage of critical products, in a worst case scenario such as this, knew that the reliance of Western countries on China for the bulk of their manufacturing needs, was, basically, a matter of not if, but when.
Those who have read “One Second After”, a 2009 novel by American writer William R. Forstchen, would be hardly surprised by the economic devastation that a Pandemic that put the world under lock-down, such as this has. Add the incredible sudden strain on the health system as a whole, plus the loss of life, and it’s a knock out punch.
We are LUCKY that we still have functioning infrastructure, especially energy, and that there’s still food supplies. But, if the livestock, and farming sectors are not aggressively protected, we may see food shortages worse than those the panic hoarding buying has produced so far. The trend in the buying public has geared mainly to CANNED and high shelf life foods. But, these just don’t appear out of thin air. No functioning farms = no supplies to be canned or frozen.
One of the largest processors of pork in the U.S., Smithfield (owned by China) has temporarily ceased operations because of a high number of its employees have been infected with the COVID19 virus. Untold quantities of perishable food, including vegetables, eggs, and milk have been disposed of because there’s no capacity to store it, since large volume consumers (restaurants, hotels, caterers, airlines, cruise ships, amusement parks, non-essential enterprise cafeterias, etc.) are closed.
Even the oil industry has totally collapsed. Make no mistake, the world will NOT be the same at all after this pandemic is over. Even the E.U.’s “every country on its own” response to the needs of Spain, Italy, and Greece during this crisis has shown the fallacy of the “Europe is one” dream.
A new re-alignment towards in the country self reliance, whenever possible, or external production in FRIENDLY countries is in the books. No two ways about it.
Just another journalist peddling their prejudice e.g. ‘…UK governments’ greater evasions and mis-steps’ but some interesting points with regard to the ever pompous aggrandising Marcon.
‘French unemployment had fallen sharply for the first time in a decade;’
I believe it fell from something like 9.4% to 8.6% or something like that, at a time when the ECB was printing money like crazy, and the US and UK were booming and at full employment. So, hardly an achievement. And, of course, the writer has to have a gratuitous dig at Trump, who has been right about more things than every western politician since 1989 put together.
president Macron at every stage of engagement with the UK military has only ever thought about France .NO consideration of joint interest .
His govt were even charging the UK transport costs for the spares being shipped to repair UK military helicopters supporting French troops in Africa .
He operates on a give and take policy UK gives and France takes.
All French presidents operate on that basis, and with regard to all other countries.
A most interesting essay that draws attention to the fact that, uniquely amongst Western leaders, Emmanuel Macron is a ‘thinker’. One would never have guessed it.
His emotional response to ‘la peste’ has been as ludicrous as that of all other Western leaders. Paranoia and hysteria seem to be the the watch words, and such statements as “nous somme en guerre” defy belief!
For many Englishman the only President of France of any stature both metaphorically and physically, was Charles de Gaulle (CDG). He certainly had the moral fibre, so obviously lacking in say, Francois Mitterrand (France’s equivalent of the wretched Lloyd George). I find it hard to imagine CDG behaving like Macron and his fellow leaders. CDG would almost certainly react precisely as Lord Jonathan Sumption advised three weeks ago, that is, with restraint and moderation in the face of this inconvenience.
Yes, you have to go back to De Gaulle to find a French leader who possessed at least some positive characteristics. Although it could be argued that one has to go all the way back to Asterix. (Apparently Asterix was based on De Gaulle).
That explains a lot! He was a great fighter for France, even if that meant enraging Churchill. His tough decision over Algeria in 1962, was a very brave move.
If only we had followed his example over Ulster in 1969!
He was rather cheeky over the ‘Quebec Incident, and I gather had an attack of ‘lack of moral fibre’ during the student riots of 1968. However by then, he was getting very old.
He was also quite correct in stating that the UK was totally unsuited to join the European Union, or as it was then called, The Common Market.
Yes, he was certainly correct about the UK and the Common Market/EEC/EU/EUSSR and, perhaps, soon to be EX-U.
I’m not sure that it was De Gaulle who lacked ‘moral fibre’ in 1968. On the whole it was the mindless, middle-class student rioters who lacked moral fibre. The students, no doubt, would say that it was the workers who lacked moral finer, for generally failing to join them.
The facts as reported are, that a despondent De Gaulle, made a precipitous departure from Paris on the 29th May, 1968, without telling anyone, including his deputy Georges Pompidou.
His destination was the French Army HQ, located at Baden-Baden, Germany. There he met the commander, General Jacques Massu, who told him to “get a grip”! But also assured him that he had the full support of the Army.
Reinvigorated De Gaulle returned to Paris as he had come, by helicopter and resumed control of the French Republic. It should mentioned that he was well past his 77th birthday during all this excitement.
So, to be fair, as you say, not ‘lack of moral fibre’, but rather a brief moment of despair, that was quickly corrected.
Given the US and UK governments’ greater evasions and mis-steps, if journalists just drop garbage sentences like this in their articles without expanding on them, then the whole article is suspect.
The writer used to work for The Independent. Perhaps he still does. I don’t know – I stopped buying or reading The Independent circa 2002 when I realised that it was utterly bonkers. (I had read and bought it since 1986 so I was a little sad about that). Anyway, this would explain his attitude and belief system.
For sure, Mr Macron likes to paint himself as the intelligent, successful and ideal son in law who mingles easily with equals. However, he lacks the gift of connecting with ‘Le Peuple’, these unwilling citizens who fail to appreciate his Greater Ideas because these ideas simply do not benefit them.
‘Love him or hate him, you have to accept that Emmanuel Macron has an extraordinary capacity for thinking and talking.’
Well he certainly has an extraordinary capacity for talking…
That said, I would have to acknowledge that he is at least capable of thought, and this makes him more interesting and (potentially) useful than the vast majority of politicians. And, to his credit, he does share these thoughts, albeit with neo-globalist organs such as The Economist and the FT.
As the article suggests, he is fortunate in that his main opponent is Le Pen, one of those politicians who is instinctively right about most things but somewhat inarticulate and prone to missteps. (That said, she won the EU elections last year and recently stormed the first round of the regional or local elections). Her relative, Marion-Marcechal (not sure if that name is totally correct or in full) would probably wipe the floor with Macron.
It would be interesting to see who would talk the most in a debate between Monsieur Macron and the Governor of New York 🙂
It would be torture, I don’t know about ‘interesting’. Perhaps they could try in some ‘terrorists’ at Gitmo.
I’ve never understood the idolatrous attitude to Macron, so prevalent among British metropolitans, but shared by few French people. In the 2017 presidential election, only 1 in 4 voted Macron on the first round, despite a large campaign in the French media against Fillon, the Republican candidate, much of which turned out later to be exaggerated or untrue. In the second round, 1 in 3 voters preferred Marine Le Pen (FN) – hardly a ringing endorsement.
Few French Presidents achieve great popularity while in office, but Macron has set a new low level.