A new form of politics? (Patrick Aventurier/Getty Images)
Marion Maréchal is 33 and Jordan Bardella, as of last month, is 28. These two young people — well-dressed, good-looking, in many ways archetypal millennials — are the leaders of the two main far-Right parties in France: Bardella of Rassemblement National (RN), once the party of Marine Le Pen; and Maréchal of Reconquête, once the party of Éric Zemmour, who has similarly passed over day-to-day leadership to Maréchal. Between them, these youngsters seek to wrench France from the liberal centrism of President Emmanuel Macron and replace it with a new form of far-Right politics.
Both parties engaged in a campaign to mainstream this ideology, most recently through a rejection of the far-Right’s most infamous association — antisemitism. Faced by the Hamas attack on Israel, they have made a point of affirming their freedom from this taint: Marine Le Pen is one of a clutch of far-Right leaders denouncing Hamas, flatly stating that “the security of the Israeli people is non-negotiable”. Zemmour, himself Jewish, took part in a march in Paris in solidarity with Israel on 12 October. Indeed, it has been Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the radical Left group La France Insoumise, whose ambiguity over the attacks has attracted the most criticism. The French Prime Minister, Elizabeth Borne, whose father survived Auschwitz, called Mélenchon’s stance “revolting”.
However, excising old hatreds is just one part of this new wind which is reshaping French politics. For a start, there is no contradiction between the youth of its leaders and their beliefs, with over 40% of 18-34-year-olds voting Le Pen in the second round of the last presidential election. To be in these posts is doubtless a vast responsibility for a young man and woman with no experience of international relationships or of government beyond local level. Yet, as activists since their teens, they act with the swagger of revolutionaries, dedicated to a radical politics built on Euroscepticism, national sovereignty, minimal immigration, strengthened families, raising Europe’s declining birth rate, and the regeneration of the Christian faith. It is a direct challenge to liberal politics of every stripe, at a time when liberalism itself is under several kinds of attack.
They have a better than even chance of success, with a combined third of the country polling for both parties in the lead up to next year’s European elections, ahead of the Left alliance and Macron’s own party. And if they achieve any elected office, they will transform more than France. They will destroy a Franco-German geopolitical engine, fuelled by constant pro-EU leadership in both states, which has kept the European Union together for decades, and without which most EU officials believe it will sputter and fail. But though they have this ambition in common, Maréchal and Bardella are near-opposites in constitution and character. Between them, they capture two faces of this new politics, and explain how it has managed to attract such a large section of French society.
Marion Maréchal is, in the world of fringe politics, the establishment candidate, brought up within the wealthy Le Pen family. Her grandfather is Jean-Marie Le Pen, who originally founded the Front National but is now 95 and only occasionally heard from. For some years Maréchal took his name and her adoptive father, Samuel Maréchal (married to Yann Le Pen, who has taken no part in her family’s politics), was leader of the National Youth movement. At the age of two, she was already appearing with Jean-Marie in election posters.
She joined the RN, successor to Front National, at 18, and became the youngest member of the French National Assembly at 22. At around this time, Marine Le Pen, daughter of Jean-Marie and Maréchal‘s aunt, inherited the party from her father, and set about trying to rid it of his obsessive antisemitism and white supremacism, while retaining its core nationalist and anti-immigrant positions. In November last year, she passed over the leadership of the RN to her protégé, Bardella, taking for herself the leadership of the much-enlarged party in the Assembly, with the intention of standing once more for the presidency in 2027.
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.
SubscribeCan we seriously stop calling any non-woke, non-progressives “Far Right”? It’s intellectually lazy in the extreme.
I was going to suggest that it would be good if Unherd were to exercise some editorial control in respect of articles and ensure that such use of the “far right” slur was deleted in respect of parties that had no anti-Semitic policy or desire to seize other territory by force. Unfortunately Unherd itself is infected by this form of intellectually lazy desire to disparage and denigrate parties proffering non-woke policies as the Far Right slur appears in the heading which is not usually supplied by the author. Whenever I see the phase “far right” applied by an author I know I am reading a writer who is intellectually shallow and unthinking and tend to discount much of the rest that he has to say.
Technically speaking there is an academic difference between the ‘far right’which exists within the acceptable discourse of a western liberal democracy, and the ‘extreme right’which usually consists of the explicitly anti-democratic right. That being said, few know of the latter and everything is referred to as far right, even if it actually isn’t, as part of a deliberate rhetorical ploy to tar enemies with the same brush. RN is ‘far right’ but the point is that it should not be a value judgment implicitly, just a statement of theoretical fact.
The position is not far right. Anarchist propagandists have seized control and are using slurs to silence moderates. They are like Hamas, they are hell bent on the total destruction of those they claim to be fighting for, they use them as human shields, hence the cries of racist, transphobe, Islamophobe etc. I guess that is why they support Hamas: they strongly identify with them.
The problem seems to be that for certain people ‘liberalism’ appears to be the obvious default. Yet go back a few generations and ‘liberalism’ was not the default.
I often wonder if instead of using the ‘far-Right’ label we could use ‘distant from the authoritarian Left’ label instead. No longer a problem with digital find and replace tools, and perhaps less intellectually lazy.
Thus: “Marion Maréchal is 33 and Jordan Bardella, as of last month, is 28. These two young people — well-dressed, good-looking, in many ways archetypal millennials — are the leaders of the two main parties distant from the authoritarian Left in France:”
Reads differently doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, in the usage on the Continent, anyone who has noticed that every fiqh of Islamic sharia is deeply illiberal, and concluded as a result that Europe should have far less immigration from the Muslim world is regularly called “far-right”.
It’s not intellectually lazy. It’s intentionally poisoning the well.
There is such a clear yearning for political change throughout the Western world. The established parties are simply unresponsive to their voters. I know nothing about these young people except what I read in this article, but I hope they are the vanguard of a new generation of politicians that will displace the complacent, self-regarding, and often senile, technocracy that currently leads the Western world.
As an American who knows little of French politics, I have a question. The author repeatedly characterizes these young politicians, and their parties, as “far Right.” He summarizes their policies as, “Euroscepticism, national sovereignty, minimal immigration, strengthened families, raising Europe’s declining birth rate, and the regeneration of the Christian faith.” My question is why are these policies characterized as “far Right” rather than simply as conservative?
That is a good question to pose. Maybe Mr Lloyd thinks that the conservative policies of Maréchal and Bardella are just a veneer, but one suspects his classification simply copies the mainstream media because he describes the list of natural conservative policies as “radical politics”.
This is a disappointing article in the sense that it concentrates on gossipy background rather than substance. As a result most of the comments have concentrated on the use of Far Right to describe the individuals and parties rather than the information in the article.
It would have been much more interesting to discover what precise policies the two parties were advocating to achieve lower immigration, strengthen families, raise Europe’s declining birth rate, regenerate the Christian faith and express their Euroscepticism. This might have generated a more wide ranging discussion on the desirability of these policies and the likelihood of their being achieved by the proposals advanced. Instead the article is empty of much of substance and interest.
I would wholeheartedly subscribe to all those policies and would say I was a straightforward conservative.
Exactly. They could even be described as liberal, insofar as they aim to protect the rights and dignities of individuals & families against creeping, and creepy, tech-enabled, globalist corporatism and nihilistic atomisation. Which of their policies would Edmund Burke or Margaret Thatcher – those archetypical liberal conservatives – have disavowed?
It’s lazy shorthand intended to villify. A bit like “Sinn Fein/IRA” or “Guardian/BBC” or “Marxist”.
Sinn Fein/Guardian/BBC/Marxist/Hamas.
I like it.
Well said. That broad manifesto is surely one held by a silent majority here in the UK. It is not right wing. It is Old Toryism. If one added in resistance to rule by coercive State dikat (a legacy of rule in the EU and Blair’s unelected Quangocracy) and the toxic State ideologies of Equalitarianism and Net Zero (the root causes of lockdown and crippling willed degrowth) and a commitment to freedom and enterprise you would have the New Manifesto for a powerful centrist movement. The horror is – none of these views are being advanced by the Johnson spaffed Fake Conservative Party. They are like a Vichy state, supporting the 20 year illberal Progressive Order, bowing to their cocky masters in the Blob. Where is our Resistance? It appears we must now await electoral catastrophe for a new party to emerge from the ruins. Rishi is sleepwalking in a sad geek- techical bubble and 50% of his wretched ill disciplined party are wet Blairite Lib Demmers who must be purged in a brand New non far right Conservative movement.
Spot on – could not have put it better.
This is not even conservatism, this is the politics of common sense, which certainly frightens the author, so he draws the inscription “fascist” on the portrait of the enemy and hits him with a paper sword
The use of ‘Far Right’ in the USA is done to tag the opposition as extremist. It’s a form of terror in and of itself. Listen to the hyperbole of Democrats James Carville or Paul Begala. Their pants-on-fire accusations of Trump-as-Hitler are laughable and embarrassing. That said, ordinary Americans know the game that’s being played by characterizing things ‘Far Right’ so people who are using it are immediately ignored except by a few groupies of said Carville, Begala and their like.
You could easily make the case that the Democrat party in the US – on a number of issues – is noticeably to the right of European parties that are thought of as (at least) Right of Centre. The UK Conservative party for one.
So when I read of parties termed by somebody else as “Far Right” I no longer have any real idea where they might sit on the Left-to-Right continuum as I might describe it.
We’ve got to a point where, frankly, we need a whole new political lexicon.
‘Left’ and ‘Right’ no longer have any distinct, universally agreed upon meaning. Terms are over-used and mis-used to the point that their definitions are now so elastic as to render them useless as definitions altogether.
Why should any policy that questions the benefits of limitless immigration automatically be described as “Far-right”?
If “Socialist” can describe such profoundly different countries as Sweden and Venezuela, is it not too loose-weave a label to be in any way useful?
Does “Populist” really just mean any policy that a journalist disapproves of?
I consider myself liberal but not ‘A Liberal’. When I hear people talking about ‘liberal values’ I feel as though they will chime with my own values and opinions. Then, when they expand on what they mean by liberal values I realise that by their lights I’m not liberal at all.
Everyday on comments pages like these we all fling around designations like progressive, centrist, liberal, neo-liberal, hard-left, far-right – I’m probably as guilty as the next man. If all the people using those terms were to plot where on the political spectrum they thought such definitions sat – and the people and policies contained within them – there would be such an almighty overlap that they become rather pointless ways to define anything.
It is often illuminating to see how definitions change over time. I just consulted my (1961 edition) dictionary and it defines “Nationalist” thusly – A person who favours or strives after the unity, independence or interests of a nation.
My online dictionary more than slightly alters that by defining a nationalist as – a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
It offers, as synonyms, the following terms : chauvinist · jingoist · jingo · flag-waver · isolationist · xenophobe.
When, How, and (perhaps more pertinently) Why, did the word become a pejorative?
And amidst all these muddled political characterizations, we are invited to vote for parties whose very names contravene the Trades Descriptions Act.
The Conservatives have not been Conservative for 30 years at least.
Labour despise the working man,
The Liberal Democrats are positively illiberal and anti-democratic.
And the Greens are dyed-in-the-wool Reds.
Perhaps we’re all in need of the services of an Overton Window Cleaner?
As usual a very good analysis. The economic policies pursued by both the Conservative and Labour Parties have more in common with the dirigiste policies of Mussolini’s Italy than classic liberal laissez-faire policies and the racist identitarian ideology pursued similarly smacks more of National Socialism than classic liberalism.
Give over with the ‘far right’ unless you refer to Starmer as ‘far left’. Anyone who doesn’t know what a woman is and acquiesces to the language of BLM and decolonization is an extremist
Almost immediately they are described as far-right. Is there any centre-right left or is “everything to the right of Marx” really Hitler now?
I had a hard time with the talk of “a radical politics built on Euroscepticism, national sovereignty, minimal immigration, strengthened families, raising Europe’s declining birth rate, and the regeneration of the Christian faith.” This is immediately contrasted with “liberal politics of every stripe, at a time when liberalism itself is under several kinds of attack.”
How are any of the six things listed not liberal? “Liberal” is a word used in many ways – one might talk of economic or social liberalism, or of a liberal as opposed to authoritarian society, but none of those fit the list (the family and Christianity are what I’d call socially liberal). I suppose this must be the American use of “liberal” in which the word just means “left wing.” Really, one has the impression of an author throwing mud a things he doesn’t like when he suggests that mainstream views are “radical” and suggests, paradoxically, that they’re somehow not “liberal.”
It is odd. A step to the right of politics appears to be happening all over Europe.
Meanwhile here in the UK we seem to be ushering in the yawn that is Keir Starmer and his interpretation of the left of politics.
You have to love our nation,, we are ever the outlier!
We are not moving to the left in the UK. The press have got bored with the current round of political news and current affairs. Consequently they want to shake things up so, a few editors have changed papers (Daily Mail / Times) some papers have decided they want to support a different party (as opposed to merely reporting the news and current affairs) and we are being herded down the road toward Labour in order that people find out just how far profligacy and promiscuous identitarianism can go.
100% correct.
So if I understand correctly; a powerful segment within British society want a Labour Government next year to show how utterly redundant and damaging the modern left is, in order to then subsequently have a truly right wing government that would follow?
It doesn’t appear that the ‘right’ as it is in current form is anything more than 3 steps behind the left. Same as it is here in America; the republicans are mostly worthless.
No, not at all. That reply just shows how you think.
Mmmmm, it’s weird isn’t it. I certainly feel more engaged by a step to the right. But weirdly most of my contemporaries are staunchly left. To the point where they are happy to ignore some frankly ridiculous points of view that they know not to be true.
A couple of them say they have (and will) always vote Labour. Can you imagine voting for a party so religiously regardless of what they say and do?!
Bizarre.
Very few are religion-less or faithless, whether they realise it or not. To one Islam, to the other, the Labour party.
The by-elections seem to suggest that conservative voters have become disenchanted with a Conservative Party that isn’t very conservative and have decided to stay at home or in some cases vote for fringe parties to give the Conservatives a kicking. There doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for Labour outside tribal Labour voters. Ironically we may end up with a Labour government that not many want through disgust at the Torys not being Tory enough.
Precisely, ‘hole in one’, well done Sir!
I think there’s a lot of truth in this – nearly 10% of the vote in Tamworth went to Reform, Britain First or UKIP.
We have a tired Tory party that needs to rediscover it’s values.
We have the least dangerous Labour leader since Blair.
hold your nose and sit it out until a serious alternative comes along.
I disagree, the current conservatives holding the reigns of power are socialist through and through. Even Gordon Brown never envisaged taxes this high. IMHO the UK has yet to move right, we are slightly behind Europe in that respect. The Torys need to Tory-up fast or be eviscerated, when perhaps in opposition they can rediscover what being a conservative is. Otherwise, Reform may break through given the next Labour administration is going to utterly trash the country. Don’t hold your breath though.
Since when is “Euroscepticism, national sovereignty, minimal immigration, strengthened families, raising Europe’s declining birth rate, and the regeneration of the Christian faith. ” far right?
Exactly . any party (in any country in Europe) standing on that platform would have my support 100%. Would that we had one such in the UK.
I am very pleased that it seems like a petard was inserted into the European Union posterior. I hope I will be around to watch when it goes off.
In any case I lived long enough to see the time when supporting Israel right to exist and to decapitate Hamas is considered far right. In this case I am in.
A pity that neither of them shows any commitment to smashing ‘gender’ ideology. Perhaps it has not taken root in France to the extent that it has in the Anglosphere.
Hi Caroline, it has taken root here but not as much as in the Anglosphere. We keep seeing noxious trans legislation passed as European guidelines get automatically transcribed into French law. The most recent one of these was a ban on “conversion therapy,” in practice outlawing psychotherapy for gender dysphoric children and adults to the benefit of “affirmative care” (i.e. puberty blockers, hormones and surgery).
The reality, whether we like it or not, is that young people in Western Europe are veering to the hard left, not the right. In France 40% of 18-34 year olds voted for Le Pen in the second round. But that was only because she was up against Macron. If Melenchon had been in the second round (and he was only narrowly squeezed out by Le Pen), they would have voted for him. This is because young people in Europe are increasingly from non-European ethnic backgrounds, and because the case for family and country, free markets and free speech has been crowded out from the discourse young people are exposed to, and are seen as utterly redundant.
Far right, far right, far right! Cordon Sanitaire strikes again, not really surprising coming from FT
I appreciated learning more about Bardella’s background but like so many other readers here, I decry describing Reconquête and the RN as “far right”.
In fact, one of the major appeals of the RN is the party’s support for social legislation that up until 5 minutes ago would have been described as left wing. It is most definitely a working class party as opposed to Reconquête, more intellectual, elite and traditionally right wing in its support of laissez-faire economics and the finacierisation of the economy.
Maybe French the youth still values being French and doesn’t want the culture to die out.
When Obama, Biden, Pelosi and co are routinely described in the US as communists and Marxists; Trump as a N**i, and anyone who thinks that a woman is an adult human female or that open borders may have some downsides as ‘far right’ or ‘fascist’, it’s quite hopeless trying to have any kind of political dialogue. In the UK the most ‘diverse’ cabinet in British or probably modern western history is regarded by many as ‘racist’; anyone who prefers the old style family and national values that my parents’ and grandparents’ generations fought and died for is now ‘far right’, while even daring to suggest that perhaps some elements of Israeli policy have exasperated and exascerbated the Palestinian situation is to be anything from ‘far left’ to N**i with ‘terrorist’ and ‘appeaser’ anywhere in between. Incoherent at best. Even wanting to nationalise rail, water and power, popular mainstream opinions for over 100 years makes you ‘far left’. What hope of dialogue when words are given such variable and contradictory meanings?
When pundits use “far left” as often as they do “far right” I may reconsider my opinion that they are progressives but trying to conceal it.
Historically speaking, France has been at the forefront of most political trends. France under Napoleon was probably Europe’s first true nation state according to the modern understanding. It is likewise unsurprising to me that the anti-globalist wave is building quickly there, and notably building among young people. It’s a trend I expect to see repeated elsewhere. It will be amusing to watch Macron and the remaining globalist true believers keep trying to bail out the Titanic while the waters continue to rise despite their efforts.
A propos the request to Macron by Bardella for a referendum on immigration this is something that should be on the political agenda of the United Kingdom. No government has asked the public for consent to encourage uncontrolled mass immigration. Did the British want 12 million immigrants since 1997? Are they happy that there are an estimated 2.3 million more people than the census numbers? We should be given a choice to continue with open borders or to tightly restrict immigration to less than 100,000. Let’s have the debate and then the government will have the moral authority to enforce the result of the referendum.
Holy smokes! They’re pursuing “radical politics built on Euroscepticism, national sovereignty, minimal immigration, strengthened families, raising Europe’s declining birth rate, and the regeneration of the Christian faith.”
These wild-eyed crazies must be stopped!
Angela Merkel’s legacy of disruption continues.
The real issue is what kind of pejorative we should sling at John Lloyd — of the Financial Times, darling.
How about tippy-top snob?
I see the far right snowflakes are very triggered by being correctly characterized as far right.
If the cap fits…
Stalinist!
Can you see the value in reviewing our terms? Party politics should come down to policies otherwise everyone is voting on the basis of branding & propoganda. How would you define far right & what is the difference between that and conservatism?