Like most criticism of the ongoing protests, this post disregards the reasons for the protests and the lack of popular support for the current government (which governs through executive orders despite no longer having a majority in parliament). But regardless of how legitimate the protests are, the high-level claims about protesting in general and its electoral consequences are completely off the mark. Here's some evidence that protests work, that they do not alienate voters, and that they have popular support.
There is little historical evidence that protests cause the parties supporting the protests to lose votes. "This is playing into the hands of the far right" is a tired line from the government and some media which intentionally implies that peaceful protests go hand in hand with looting and rioting, and shift the blame for the looting and rioting from the mismanaged and poorly allocated police to the protesters themselves. In reality, none of the political parties or unions calling for protests are calling for violence, looting, or rioting. The leader of the left party, interviewed on the following day, says so explicitly, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9oy1l8w8Ig.
What does "play into the hands of the far right" is the police doctrine enforced by the current government (escalation, repression) and false accusations (made by the government and relayed by the media) that the left party is responsible for looting and rioting. In Paris, at Place de la Republique, the starting location of the APPROVED protest, the protesters were tear gased repeatedly despite the protest being 100% lawful. It is this kind of police repression which leads to escalating violence. More generally, the brutal repression of protests has caused the European Comission to weigh in, reminding the french governement that "the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right in all democratic countries and must be protected” (https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13963/22/social-mobilisations-european-commission-calls-for-distinction-between-peaceful-demonstrators-and-those-who-commit-violence).
Did you read the wikipedia link? It's not astroturfing, it's literal ownership of media conglomerates by a supporter of the far right. Some of the TV channels have been repeatedly sanctioned by French media watchdogs for partisanship. There is lots of coverage of this in the media (referenced in the wikipedia article).
Besides, my point is that the far right is popular everywhere in the western world right now, that its popularity has been rising steadily for a number of years, and that tying it to the most recent protests is inane.
In this case, given that the far left was agitating for the protests, there is evidence the protests are helping the right. Protests don't automatically help the right, but in this specific case they do.
You are reducing the situation to "protests had bad outcomes, leftists side with protesters, therefore protests helped the right".
But this only holds if you believe that the protests have bad outcomes, which is a right-wing view in the first place. This take is a a snake eating its own tail.
In reality:
- the protesters have popular support
- protests are historically successful in obtaining political change
- the left explicitly advocates for non-violence and does not endorse the rioting and looting
- rioting and looting are apolitical acts by people who take advantage of the chaos, and the chaos in large part the government's responbility. police presence during protests is supposed to deter looters. but during the october 17 protests, there was a record low ratio of police to protesters, and looters were left to run free while the police teargased and charged the peaceful majority. the government then uses the violence as a political weapon to delegitimize the protests (and this works extremely well, as illustrated by jeff's post and your comment, which do not even stop and wonder whether the protests are legitimate, or whether the violence is endorsed by the protesters)
- there have even been documented instances of undercover police masquerading as protesters and instigating violence (looting / destroying property) to justify additional repression. among the french police, there is outsized support for the far right
When I see "Liberty Leading The People" I can't help but think in a few months there will be a movie about Liberty and how she inspired one of the many French revolutions, and Liberty will be played by Sydney Sweeney, and there will be a massive social media backlash, driven by French women posting, "This is what real French titties look like!" and the true meaning of the 1832 revolution will be even further lost to the mists of history.
"Charging the world while sexy". Isn't that how many of us like to envision ourselves? Instead, we pay our mortgages, raise our kids, and floss our teeth all the while hoping we make it to retirement.
Thanks, Jeff, this was a nice antidote to reading threads where an army of bots has been exhorting Americans to "Rise up like the brave French!" We are supposed to be rioting in the streets for a goal that no one can seem to define.
"The complicating fact in every populist narrative is that many people don’t want freedom or rights or any of that high-minded hippie crap: They want to be led by an awesome winner who kicks ass."
The whole topic is dealt with in depth by Tocqueville in his "The Old Regime and the French Revolution." The French people got rid of Louis XVI and got the First Republic, but they replaced it with Napoleon. And Tocqueville complains about seeing the pattern repeated, with the Second Republic replaced by Napoleon III.
If you've ever actually read the unabridged version of Les Miserables, you'll find out two things about Victor Hugo.
1. He had a massive man-crush on Napoleon Bonaparte.
2. He subscribed to the "can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" philosophy, claiming the suppression of the Vendee revolt, in which several hundred thousand Bretons got killed by the revolutionaries for the terrible crime of not hating the Catholic Church, as being totally justified because the revolt was for narrow interests rather than The Good of France.
(IOTW, would Hugo be wearing a "Free Palestine" shirt? Yes, because he was similarly lackwitted.)
I could not disagree more.
Like most criticism of the ongoing protests, this post disregards the reasons for the protests and the lack of popular support for the current government (which governs through executive orders despite no longer having a majority in parliament). But regardless of how legitimate the protests are, the high-level claims about protesting in general and its electoral consequences are completely off the mark. Here's some evidence that protests work, that they do not alienate voters, and that they have popular support.
The far right has always had a lead in the polls for the 2027 election, and the poll linked is from before the protests (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2027_French_presidential_election). Tying these polls to the recent protests is a stretch. The reasons for increasing far right popularity are plentiful, but France is not an isolated case, and the first places to look should be racism and paid-for media support (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bollor%C3%A9#Construction_d'un_empire_m%C3%A9diatique_conservateur_et_r%C3%A9actionnaire).
There is little historical evidence that protests cause the parties supporting the protests to lose votes. "This is playing into the hands of the far right" is a tired line from the government and some media which intentionally implies that peaceful protests go hand in hand with looting and rioting, and shift the blame for the looting and rioting from the mismanaged and poorly allocated police to the protesters themselves. In reality, none of the political parties or unions calling for protests are calling for violence, looting, or rioting. The leader of the left party, interviewed on the following day, says so explicitly, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9oy1l8w8Ig.
What does "play into the hands of the far right" is the police doctrine enforced by the current government (escalation, repression) and false accusations (made by the government and relayed by the media) that the left party is responsible for looting and rioting. In Paris, at Place de la Republique, the starting location of the APPROVED protest, the protesters were tear gased repeatedly despite the protest being 100% lawful. It is this kind of police repression which leads to escalating violence. More generally, the brutal repression of protests has caused the European Comission to weigh in, reminding the french governement that "the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right in all democratic countries and must be protected” (https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13963/22/social-mobilisations-european-commission-calls-for-distinction-between-peaceful-demonstrators-and-those-who-commit-violence).
There is lots of historical precedent for protests resulting in real change. The recent protests are an echo of the 2018 gilet jaunes protests, which were successful in opposing the "carbon tax" proposed by the government (see https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/voici-la-liste-exhaustive-de-tout-ce-que-les-gilets-jaunes-ont-obtenu-depuis-le-debut-du-mouvement-4647551).
The current protests are supported by the majority. They had an unprecendeted turnout, and 55% of pollers support or sympathize with the protests, while only 35% are opposed or hostile (see https://www.commission-des-sondages.fr/notices/files/notices/2026/octobre/10322-pres-mobilisations-sociales-elabe-16-octobre.pdf).
The moment you start blaming astroturf for the popularity of movements you don't like, you lose credibility.
(And I don't like the National Front; however, I'm not stupid enough to think that its popularity is the result of propaganda.)
Did you read the wikipedia link? It's not astroturfing, it's literal ownership of media conglomerates by a supporter of the far right. Some of the TV channels have been repeatedly sanctioned by French media watchdogs for partisanship. There is lots of coverage of this in the media (referenced in the wikipedia article).
Besides, my point is that the far right is popular everywhere in the western world right now, that its popularity has been rising steadily for a number of years, and that tying it to the most recent protests is inane.
Media conglomerates don't get viewers unless they have an audience.
In this case, given that the far left was agitating for the protests, there is evidence the protests are helping the right. Protests don't automatically help the right, but in this specific case they do.
You are reducing the situation to "protests had bad outcomes, leftists side with protesters, therefore protests helped the right".
But this only holds if you believe that the protests have bad outcomes, which is a right-wing view in the first place. This take is a a snake eating its own tail.
In reality:
- the protesters have popular support
- protests are historically successful in obtaining political change
- the left explicitly advocates for non-violence and does not endorse the rioting and looting
- rioting and looting are apolitical acts by people who take advantage of the chaos, and the chaos in large part the government's responbility. police presence during protests is supposed to deter looters. but during the october 17 protests, there was a record low ratio of police to protesters, and looters were left to run free while the police teargased and charged the peaceful majority. the government then uses the violence as a political weapon to delegitimize the protests (and this works extremely well, as illustrated by jeff's post and your comment, which do not even stop and wonder whether the protests are legitimate, or whether the violence is endorsed by the protesters)
- there have even been documented instances of undercover police masquerading as protesters and instigating violence (looting / destroying property) to justify additional repression. among the french police, there is outsized support for the far right
I’m just gonna leave this here:
https://youtu.be/wp84sRpM1Js?is=Snh_vwmRMUysrRfg
When I see "Liberty Leading The People" I can't help but think in a few months there will be a movie about Liberty and how she inspired one of the many French revolutions, and Liberty will be played by Sydney Sweeney, and there will be a massive social media backlash, driven by French women posting, "This is what real French titties look like!" and the true meaning of the 1832 revolution will be even further lost to the mists of history.
"Charging the world while sexy". Isn't that how many of us like to envision ourselves? Instead, we pay our mortgages, raise our kids, and floss our teeth all the while hoping we make it to retirement.
Thanks, Jeff, this was a nice antidote to reading threads where an army of bots has been exhorting Americans to "Rise up like the brave French!" We are supposed to be rioting in the streets for a goal that no one can seem to define.
I'll burn my town down if I hear my dentist tell me one more time, "I'd really like to see more flossing."
"Doc, you know what you want to see, but you don't know what you're going to see."
The only way to make me floss regularly is to threaten me with a trip to the guillotine.
"The complicating fact in every populist narrative is that many people don’t want freedom or rights or any of that high-minded hippie crap: They want to be led by an awesome winner who kicks ass."
The whole topic is dealt with in depth by Tocqueville in his "The Old Regime and the French Revolution." The French people got rid of Louis XVI and got the First Republic, but they replaced it with Napoleon. And Tocqueville complains about seeing the pattern repeated, with the Second Republic replaced by Napoleon III.
Great read, Maurer.
I think you could replace French with “American leftists” and this would remain an accurate article.
If you've ever actually read the unabridged version of Les Miserables, you'll find out two things about Victor Hugo.
1. He had a massive man-crush on Napoleon Bonaparte.
2. He subscribed to the "can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" philosophy, claiming the suppression of the Vendee revolt, in which several hundred thousand Bretons got killed by the revolutionaries for the terrible crime of not hating the Catholic Church, as being totally justified because the revolt was for narrow interests rather than The Good of France.
(IOTW, would Hugo be wearing a "Free Palestine" shirt? Yes, because he was similarly lackwitted.)
What is Sydney Sweeneys appearance fee for a revolution?
Asking for a friend.....
I suspect that there are multiple rates, depending on the level of nudity requested.