Of course, politics can change. It must respond to new realities. Migration, crime and social tensions are real challenges that a government must address. But it is another matter to spend years wagging a moralizing finger and then adopt precisely those issues that were previously considered unacceptable.
That looks less like conviction than a poorly disguised change of strategy.
The real irony is that precisely the development voters were supposedly meant to be protected from is now taking place. For years, it was said that right-wing parties must under no circumstances shape the political debate. Today, they shape it more than ever – not necessarily because they govern everywhere, but because their issues have now been adopted by almost everyone.
One could almost say: the Rassemblement National’s greatest political success is that its opponents now speak its language.
Gabriel Attal is merely the latest example. Anyone who wants to become president in 2027 now seems to believe that they have no chance without toughness on migration policy, security rhetoric and demonstrative authority. That may be understandable from an electoral strategy perspective. Yet it raises an uncomfortable question: what did Macronism actually stand for if, in the end, it nonetheless takes its cue from those it was once founded to oppose?
Even more troubling is the signal this sends to citizens. Politics depends on credibility. Anyone who yesterday declared certain positions a threat to democracy but adopts them today should not be surprised by growing disillusionment with politics. Why should voters still distinguish between the original and the copy when both increasingly send the same messages?
Perhaps we are witnessing the greatest political irony of the Fifth Republic. The last presidential election was won on the promise of protecting France from a shift to the right. Now, the next campaign appears to be fought precisely by moving as close as possible to those very issues.
A dangerous game.
For if everyone believes that elections can only be won with ever harsher slogans, it is not just the campaign that shifts – but the entire political coordinate system. The center moves to the right, the right sets new standards, and in the end the same politicians wonder why the original continues to appear more credible than even the most skillful copy.
Perhaps that is the bitterest lesson of this development: those who spend years mobilizing against their political opponents and then adopt their agenda ultimately strengthen them more than any opposition speech ever could.
P. Tiko
Just two years ago, the message was clear: France had to be protected at all costs from the rise of the far right. Millions of voters were mobilized to prevent the Rassemblement National. It was about democracy, republican values and the famous firewall. The message was that anyone voting for the right was gambling with the future of the Republic.
And today?
Suddenly, much of it sounds remarkably familiar. Caps on migration. Tougher criminal law. Authority. Security. National identity. Terms that were yesterday still regarded as trademarks of the conservative and right-wing opposition are now being adopted by those who once presented themselves as its alternative.
What a remarkable political metamorphosis.
Apparently, an idea is no longer dangerous once it is voiced by a politician from the political center. The same demand, the same content – just a different party membership card. A position supposedly deemed unacceptable suddenly becomes a responsible reform proposal overnight. Who is supposed to keep up with this spectacle?
P. Tiko
P. Tiko
Of course, politics can change. It must respond to new realities. Migration, crime and social tensions are real challenges that a government must address. But it is another matter to spend years wagging a moralizing finger and then adopt precisely those issues that were previously considered unacceptable.
That looks less like conviction than a poorly disguised change of strategy.
The real irony is that precisely the development voters were supposedly meant to be protected from is now taking place. For years, it was said that right-wing parties must under no circumstances shape the political debate. Today, they shape it more than ever – not necessarily because they govern everywhere, but because their issues have now been adopted by almost everyone.
One could almost say: the Rassemblement National’s greatest political success is that its opponents now speak its language.
Gabriel Attal is merely the latest example. Anyone who wants to become president in 2027 now seems to believe that they have no chance without toughness on migration policy, security rhetoric and demonstrative authority. That may be understandable from an electoral strategy perspective. Yet it raises an uncomfortable question: what did Macronism actually stand for if, in the end, it nonetheless takes its cue from those it was once founded to oppose?
Even more troubling is the signal this sends to citizens. Politics depends on credibility. Anyone who yesterday declared certain positions a threat to democracy but adopts them today should not be surprised by growing disillusionment with politics. Why should voters still distinguish between the original and the copy when both increasingly send the same messages?
Perhaps we are witnessing the greatest political irony of the Fifth Republic. The last presidential election was won on the promise of protecting France from a shift to the right. Now, the next campaign appears to be fought precisely by moving as close as possible to those very issues.
A dangerous game.
For if everyone believes that elections can only be won with ever harsher slogans, it is not just the campaign that shifts – but the entire political coordinate system. The center moves to the right, the right sets new standards, and in the end the same politicians wonder why the original continues to appear more credible than even the most skillful copy.
Perhaps that is the bitterest lesson of this development: those who spend years mobilizing against their political opponents and then adopt their agenda ultimately strengthen them more than any opposition speech ever could.
P. Tiko