A battle of worldviews

At Easter I was in Paris and once again fell in love with this city and its inhabitants. On the streets the night is full of passers-by, everywhere there are groups of people of different skin colors, they speak to each other and laugh. Young women in business suits with a cigarette in hand talking in front of the cafe with an elderly gentlemen, in the inner courtyards of the national shrines of playing football mixed group of kids with proud parents, bearded and beardless, with handkerchiefs on the head or without.

Night on the stairs in front of sacré-cœur Basilica blacks play on old musical instruments and plastic boxes, men of Arab origin illegal to sell beer from the cartons, although the landing are the young soldiers with automatic weapons and body armor. Between German tourists in practical jackets, a white-haired American tourists and Asian tourists with selfie sticks, which the locals ignore stoic, but not rude.

In every store and in every Museum now has a security control that sometimes leads to long queues, but still appeal remains polite and civilized, sometimes even funny. And if you pass through this city, which at least within the boundaries of the center looks like a model of a future Europe, it is difficult to believe that such xenophobic configured as nationalist marine Le Pen (Marine Le Pen), according to the last polls before the election, could take second place from 22% in the first round of the presidential election.

A two-thirds majority for common sense?

This picture is much more appropriate that the 39-year-old Emmanuel macron (Emmanuel Macron), according to the same polls, in the first round may be a little ahead of Le Pen, and the second round can then count on a majority of 62% to 65%. It would be a majority of almost two thirds over common sense.

In the choice between Le Pen and Macron confront each other, two fundamentally different views about the future world. One realistic, the other is dangerous, irresponsible fiction.

Marine Le Pen advocates a paradoxical vision of a nationalist international, for that in line with the reactionaries in the East and in the West to make a turn back to a fictitious past. Therefore, Le Pen is photographed with Vladimir Putin, so she praises Donald trump, so she says some nonsense about the deportation of French Jews during the Second world war. Not to recall the Hecke Bjorn (Björn Höcke).

With the shovel against the sand dune

Le Pen sees himself as a part of the international movement that wants to turn back the political clock. Therefore, her party is investing, and not only that it integrates with ADH (Alternative for Germany — approx. transl.), so much energy in cutting the rights of minorities and dealing with the past. So she wants quite in line with Putin’s course, weakening NATO, a weakening of the EU, reductions in the area of international trade.

The programme of such parties as the national front is based on two psychologically easy to explain, but certainly irrational pillars, which should serve to increase self-esteem of its supporters. This is, first, the marginalization of minorities, the key word is “lower social comparison”. And, second, the preference to their own “nation” in comparison with other key word is “In-Group vs. Out-Group” (the circle of persons with common interests against outsiders).

These positions are irrational because, for example, belittling Muslims absolutely will not change anything in the real problems of a great nation. Because globalization is not going anywhere just because of the fact that one country does not want more to participate. On the contrary, the globalized world will react to isolated attempts of removal by individual States like the sand dunes on single attempts to turn it backwards with a shovel.

Nationalist, revisionist, cynical

Maybe with such positions and will be able to win the election, but in any case not the future. Probably marine Le Pen knows this is what characterizes her not only as a nationalist and a historical revisionist, but as a cynic.

Emmanuel macron, of course, is not a perfect candidate, because this candidate just can’t be. But his vision of the future of Europe and the world coincides with reality we are now seeing. He knows that globalization is not stopped, but it can be shaped. He knows that this is possible only with a strong European Union — and doesn’t even have the courage sometimes to say things that he thinks is right, although in France they do not like to listen.

For example, when he called the French colonial policy “a crime against humanity and the present barbarism.” That his allegedly corrupt, demonstrably and for personal reasons he is friendly towards Russia rival Francois Fillon (François Fillon) was then considered “unworthy” for the candidate.

Makron is definitely not representative of the people in the narrow sense of the word, his parents are doctors, he was educated at one of the elite French universities, worked for a philosopher, was a banker, presidential Advisor and Minister. However, it seems very far from the amazing arrogance of mutual responsibility from a visit to Le Pen, the shamelessness and the impunity which French voters justifiably react with strong distrust of “elites.”

Even if it seems incredible that many French voters will read this article, it still contains a call to all whom it may concern: go to the polls today and in two weeks, choose Makron. And not only to resist nationalism, and in the interests of common sense.