French presidential election, 2022

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

it is meaningful to observe that Macron's 2022 electorate is largely a continuation of a right wing tendency. The point is you showed a picture of this map to a French person with an understanding of political geography in the 80's, they would probably make the assumption that macron was on the right. I think you're assuming people are saying because they want to diss macron, which is not really the case - the strand of rightism represented by macron is hardly the worst thing in the world.

[Velasco]

Macron is absolutely "right", if a political line of cutting the welfare state, economic liberalism, cracking down on migrants etc, etc, then you are basically trying to redefine what the right actually is

"Left" and "right" are not meaningful terms in their own right really, they are always defined relatively in terms of where you are and who you are up against. In that sense Macron and LREM are absolutely the center party in France.

Lol no, that ideological relativism is absolutely hollow. "Left" and "right" represent a set of policies, philosophies and worldviews shared by the "leftwing" and "rightwing" constitiencies. I'm not implying these sets of philosophies, beliefs or whatever are rigid and invariable, but there are core elements in them that remain.

It's up to see whether Macron is "rightwing" or "centrist" (I vote for the moderate hero option: "centre-right"), but there is a difference between political "centre" (whatever that word means) and being at the center of the stage. Macron is undoubtedly in a central position in French politics, but this doesn't imply neccessarilly he is exactly in the middle of the ideological spectrum

[adma]

When it comes to the reach of Le Pen in the DOM-TOM, let's also not forget the comparison point of Ford Nation in Toronto.

[Zinneke]

Macron is absolutely "right", if a political line of cutting the welfare state, economic liberalism, cracking down on migrants etc, etc, then you are basically trying to redefine what the right actually is

There has always been a tradition in European and French politics of right-wing politics being accompanied by a degree of cultural liberalism. Giscard d'Estaing was nothing if not a right-wing president and in any acse, the self-identified "centre" in France has traditionally been inseparable from the right when it comes to electoral alliances and all the rest. And when you look at Macron's policies, who is his government (hint some very hard line rightwingers) and who supports him (Sarkozy, enthusiastically) then the guy is right wing. This is not even a debate to be had.

Yes if you come from a left-wing perspective, there is no debate to be had, he is a right-winger. But whether you like it or not Macron has included elements of traditional French Left ideology that make him sui generis. There is elements of reformism in his language, style and he tows the idea of preserving the social security model with austerity (you and I find this contradictory, but these progressives don't). No LR President would have put the EU flag up, vociferously defended climate action, etc. Also you mention electoral alliance, well Macron has been able to forge some with PS or ex-PS as well as LR, and that makes him different from the whole VGE  trend.

Let's settle this debate (because there is a debate to be had) and get the political scientists to evaluate his messaging and his manifesto according to clear indicators and class him accordingly. I'd wager they would settle the debate by calling him unclassifiable.

Now all of these are symbolic. In terms of policy, I would say he has just run the ship on a steady course that the McKinsey-type neo-liberal mandarins have told him to go on. I don't think any button on the Presidential dashboard (or indeed any European leader on their own) works anyway. And the EU mudpit is still about state interests rather than broad ideological debates. So I don't think Macron is a right-wing ideologue...he's just a manager with slogans and "en meme temps" in terms of action.

One thing the sectarians on the far left are unable to understand is that a Macroniste figure still does have appeal with some progressive-minded people. There is a broad coherence to him being able to attract 10-15% of the old PS vote to his camp. He still has ministers that were ministers under Hollande. You can label them right-wing, which is the standard sectarian response the French Left have been making for years. How has that strategy worked out? Still enjoying 3rd place for an overtly pro-Putin, xenophobic Strasserite demagogue as a left-wing "victory" and popular Union? Losing mentality. Let's rule out Jadot because he worked for an NGO in Paris, let's rule out Roussel because he can beat the right at their own game in the trivial aspects culture wars, all of them are "right-wing" in your eyes...but again this is just blinkered sectarianism.

PS : Sarkozy hardly supported him enthusiastically given he stayed silent in the first round and endorsed him in the second round be default. By the same logic Hollande endorsing him makes Macron in Hollande's image.

[Alben Barkley]

Macron is absolutely "right", if a political line of cutting the welfare state, economic liberalism, cracking down on migrants etc, etc, then you are basically trying to redefine what the right actually is

"Left" and "right" are not meaningful terms in their own right really, they are always defined relatively in terms of where you are and who you are up against. In that sense Macron and LREM are absolutely the center party in France.

Lol no, that ideological relativism is absolutely hollow. "Left" and "right" represent a set of policies, philosophies and worldviews shared by the "leftwing" and "rightwing" constitiencies. I'm not implying these sets of philosophies, beliefs or whatever are rigid and invariable, but there are core elements in them that remain.

It's up to see whether Macron is "rightwing" or "centrist" (I vote for the moderate hero option: "centre-right"), but there is a difference between political "centre" (whatever that word means) and being at the center of the stage. Macron is undoubtedly in a central position in French politics, but this doesn't imply neccessarilly he is exactly in the middle of the ideological spectrum

Yeah, well, you know, that's jut, like, your opinion, man.

[Estrella]

Macron is absolutely "right", if a political line of cutting the welfare state, economic liberalism, cracking down on migrants etc, etc, then you are basically trying to redefine what the right actually is

"Left" and "right" are not meaningful terms in their own right really, they are always defined relatively in terms of where you are and who you are up against. In that sense Macron and LREM are absolutely the center party in France.

Lol no, that ideological relativism is absolutely hollow. "Left" and "right" represent a set of policies, philosophies and worldviews shared by the "leftwing" and "rightwing" constitiencies. I'm not implying these sets of philosophies, beliefs or whatever are rigid and invariable, but there are core elements in them that remain.

It's up to see whether Macron is "rightwing" or "centrist" (I vote for the moderate hero option: "centre-right"), but there is a difference between political "centre" (whatever that word means) and being at the center of the stage. Macron is undoubtedly in a central position in French politics, but this doesn't imply neccessarilly he is exactly in the middle of the ideological spectrum

Yeah, well, you know, that's jut, like, your opinion, man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché#Examples

[Mike88]

2nd round results in Portugal:

74.5% Macron (4,185 votes)
25.5% Le Pen (1,430 votes)

36.4% Turnout

Le Pen got a lower share of the vote compared with the sum of Zemmour, Le Pen and Dupont-Aignan in the 1st round, 30.1%.

[parochial boy]

Or to try again with regards to the vote in the DOM-TOM. They’re not the USA, they’re not like the USA, they’re not following trends that you see in the USA. They have their own historical, economic and social context that is simply too different to the USA and trying to analyse everything through the prysm of “how does it compare to the US” is just missing the point so much as to make any analysis of what happened in those places complete bunk.

I mean, let’s start by pretending the Seine-Saint-Denis or the Est-Lyonnais don’t exist. Or all those areas in metropolitan France with large minority populations that voted massively for Mélenchon in the first round before swing towards abstention, but still actually trending away from Le Pen in the second. Let’s just look at the islands. Do you really think that if the Réunionnais or the Guadeloupéens were like Cubans in Miami or the Rio Grande valley then in the first round they would have given such massive numbers to Mélenchon? You know, the candidate of inclusive language, trans rights and pro-migrant politics? A guy whose closeness to certain left wing dictators – who aren’t all that far away from the Antilles – far surpasses anything you could accuse of the Democrats of?

I mean, don’t be silly. These places aren’t “trending” right, and nor does it really make a lot of sense to describe a black Guadeloupéen as being a “minority”. They are responding to the particular contexts they are in, in the context of a political and economic context – and relationship with mainland France – that is not even remotely like being a replica of anything you see in the USA.

Yes if you come from a left-wing perspective, there is no debate to be had, he is a right-winger. But whether you like it or not Macron has included elements of traditional French Left ideology that make him sui generis. There is elements of reformism in his language, style and he tows the idea of preserving the social security model with austerity (you and I find this contradictory, but these progressives don't). No LR President would have put the EU flag up, vociferously defended climate action, etc. Also you mention electoral alliance, well Macron has been able to forge some with PS or ex-PS as well as LR, and that makes him different from the whole VGE  trend.

Let's settle this debate (because there is a debate to be had) and get the political scientists to evaluate his messaging and his manifesto according to clear indicators and class him accordingly. I'd wager they would settle the debate by calling him unclassifiable.

----
PS : Sarkozy hardly supported him enthusiastically given he stayed silent in the first round and endorsed him in the second round be default. By the same logic Hollande endorsing him makes Macron in Hollande's image.

The thing is, there is actually a tradition of right-wing politicians bringing in left wing symbols to an otherwise right wing agenda. It's called Bonapartisme, and has historically being classified as far right. I mean, I am in absolutely no way accusing the guy at all of being a Bonapartiste or of being far right; but it simply the point that this isn't something that is unheard of. Nor is it a surprise that there is a segment of people who have varying progressive opinions on certain things but who still aren't actually left wing. Even the progressive elements of Macron's own agenda, well they can and have been implemented by right of centre governments elsewhere.

I mean, at the end of the day his own electorate is sociologically right wing, tends to consider itself as right wing and French society increasingly perceives him as being right of centre; and his agenda falls quite neatly into the tradition of the liberal right. This is matched by the fact that it is principally the Républicains who are collapsing into his movement (and even when MoDem were mooting alliances with the PS, this didn't really change the perception that they were ultimately a party that leaned right of centre. The fact that LREM in their current guise are more apt to ally with the right speaks the most here). And with Sarkozy it was the biggest open secret that he wanted to endorse Macron from the first round. Honestly, the insistence that he is not right is something that is generally pushed people who generally want to cling to a left-of-centre identity that doesn't match their own politics; or from the far right; or from the "left and right don't mean anything any more crowd", which is itself an empty cliché that obscures far more than it reveals.

I mean, I don't deny he has been very succesful in responding to where French politics is at the moment, but French politics is on the right at the moment and him being the moderate face of that doesn't mean he isn't.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Given the outcome of the presidential election I'd say France and the EU live to fight another day, although with Le Pen's results in mind the sword of Damocles continues to hang above their heads.

It's problematic for a democracy that the executive and the legislative branch are so thoroughly dominated by a single political party on a seemingly permanent basis, while any meaningful opposition consists almost entirely of far-right and left-wing populist parties. That sounds a bit like Russia except that in France the election results are at least not rigged. In any case, France needs better opposition.

Speaking of Russia, I think the importance that Putin has failed to gain any sort of a foothold within Western Europe yesterday can't be stressed enough.

[Oryxslayer]

Incredibly rough and quick map of the preliminary constituency results, cause I got medical appointments today. The preliminary data for all breakdowns can now be found on the data.gouv site from the ministry of the interior, however these are not the signed and approved final results that will come in a few days.

Le Pen won 158 constituencies, 26 by over 60%. The is real potential for FN to make gains - based mainly on the round 1 data but also on this - but obviously to only a limited extent. There is zero chance FN will be close in all 158 seats, I think their target list is likely a good bit less than 100.

Incredibly, these preliminary results suggest there is a tied constituency: Marne 3rd at 27,093 votes for both candidates. Would be impressive if that remains true after verification.

[DL]

If Macron is defined as “rightwing” what was Francois Hollande? He was supposedly a socialist but wasn’t his presidency all about austerity and Macron was his Economics Minister?

[Antonio the Sixth]

If Macron is defined as “rightwing” what was Francois Hollande? He was supposedly a socialist but wasn’t his presidency all about austerity and Macron was his Economics Minister?

Under Hollande there was some real measure of downwards redistribution, even if that was muddled up by some boondoggle schemes of subsidies to businesses and an absurd effort to deregulate worker protections.

Macron meanwhile abolished the wealth tax and slashed the capital gains tax, in addition to further labor deregulations and the continued undermining of the pensions system.

[Sir Mohamed]

While I'm incredibly reliefed Macron pulled this off, and it wasn't *that* close in the end, it's still WAY closer than it should have been, given Mademoiselle Le Pen is not some normal right of center politician. When over 40% vote for such a candidate, there's something wrong.

Macron, just like other Western leaders, need to figure out what to do with mostly rural voters that view globalization as a threat instead of an opportunity and who feel overwhelmed by rapid cultural changes. For sure, latter is kind of shortsighted, but these people are there and the govt needs to figure out a way to address their concerns. I know this is easy to write for me, though it's a challenge leaders have to take on.

[Velasco]

Given the outcome of the presidential election I'd say France and the EU live to fight another day, although with Le Pen's results in mind the sword of Damocles continues to hang above their heads.

It's problematic for a democracy that the executive and the legislative branch are so thoroughly dominated by a single political party on a seemingly permanent basis, while any meaningful opposition consists almost entirely of far-right and left-wing populist parties. That sounds a bit like Russia except that in France the election results are at least not rigged. In any case, France needs better opposition.

Speaking of Russia, I think the importance that Putin has failed to gain any sort of a foothold within Western Europe yesterday can't be stressed enough.

I share some of your toughts about Europe and the democracy. However, are you really tryng to establish a comparison between French and Russian politics? Is LREM equivalent to United Russia,  RN to the LDPR and LFI to the CPRF?

Also, I don't share the parallels that some people draw between far-right and leftwing populisms in Western Europe. In Russia the Putin's party, the LDPR and the communists share a staunch social reactionarism, contrary to progressive causes such as LGBT rights. In Western Europe far-right populists favor policies contrary to the the rights of migrants and other minorities, while leftwing populist parties usually favor inclusive policies. I wouldn't say LFI represents a risk for essential democratic values, despite I don't find Mélenchon pleasant at a personal level and I'm more Europeanist than him

[Zinneke]

Given the outcome of the presidential election I'd say France and the EU live to fight another day, although with Le Pen's results in mind the sword of Damocles continues to hang above their heads.

It's problematic for a democracy that the executive and the legislative branch are so thoroughly dominated by a single political party on a seemingly permanent basis, while any meaningful opposition consists almost entirely of far-right and left-wing populist parties. That sounds a bit like Russia except that in France the election results are at least not rigged. In any case, France needs better opposition.

Speaking of Russia, I think the importance that Putin has failed to gain any sort of a foothold within Western Europe yesterday can't be stressed enough.

I share some of your toughts about Europe and the democracy. However, are you really tryng to establish a comparison between French and Russian politics? Is LREM equivalent to United Russia,  RN to the LDPR and LFI to the CPRF?

Also, I don't share the parallels that some people draw between far-right and leftwing populisms in Western Europe. In Russia the Putin's party, the LDPR and the communists share a staunch social reactionarism, contrary to progressive causes such as LGBT rights. In Western Europe far-right populists favor policies contrary to the the rights of migrants and other minorities, while leftwing populist parties usually favor inclusive policies. I wouldn't say LFI represents a risk for essential democratic values, despite I don't find Mélenchon pleasant at a personal level and I'm more Europeanist than him

idk man, when LFI's (only) leader says things like "La République C'est Moi" and says he would use Robespierre as an example of leadership, I kind of think LFI would be a threat to democracy. And I don't buy the argument that because it's 2022 somehow it cannot happen again.

[Pick Up the Phone]

Macron, just like other Western leaders, need to figure out what to do with mostly rural voters that view globalization as a threat instead of an opportunity and who feel overwhelmed by rapid cultural changes. For sure, latter is kind of shortsighted, but these people are there and the govt needs to figure out a way to address their concerns. I know this is easy to write for me, though it's a challenge leaders have to take on.

I don’t think there is much that can be done. First, it is a popular misperception that social change at the macro level can be fundamentally shaped via electoral politics. In most cases, the options are rather limited - globalization, for instance, is a fact and will only intensify over the course of our lifetime (regardless of what national governments want and do). And it will always create winners and losers. Second, the “victim of globalization” / “overwhelmed by cultural change” identity is more often performative than it is material.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think we can say fairly clearly that Macron has governed the country like a Giscard - or even a Chirac actually - and that his electoral coalition this time round reflected that, but also that his political journey has been an odd one and that elements of this can also be found in his electoral coalition: it is this combination that makes him a politically dominant figure, for all his general lack of concrete accomplishment.* So thinking of him as functionally a political figure of the Right makes sense, so long as we accept that this doesn't make him a glow-up version of Poison Dwarf: and I think not quite getting this is where some of his left-wing critics fall down. His personal political views are, of course, entirely obscure, but that's hardly a novelty amongst French Presidents or even that relevant: none of us will ever know exactly what Mitterrand believed in, if he ever believed in anything other than Mitterrand. It makes sense to accept that this is also true of Macron.

_{*Having a broadly right-wing electorate but with strong elements from elsewhere who might not so easily vote for a candidate with a similar policy profile also makes him, in this singular respect at least, more like De Gaulle than any other post-De Gaulle President of the Fifth Republic: whether this is appropriate or ironic is best viewed as a matter of personal preference.}

[Sir Mohamed]

Macron, just like other Western leaders, need to figure out what to do with mostly rural voters that view globalization as a threat instead of an opportunity and who feel overwhelmed by rapid cultural changes. For sure, latter is kind of shortsighted, but these people are there and the govt needs to figure out a way to address their concerns. I know this is easy to write for me, though it's a challenge leaders have to take on.

I don’t think there is much that can be done. First, it is a popular misperception that social change at the macro level can be fundamentally shaped via electoral politics. In most cases, the options are rather limited - globalization, for instance, is a fact and will only intensify over the course of our lifetime (regardless of what national governments want and do). And it will always create winners and losers. Second, the “victim of globalization” / “overwhelmed by cultural change” identity is more often performative than it is material.

Populism is equally strong in Western countries, so I wouldn't say there's nothing that can be done about it. After all, getting in politics is usually about solving difficult problems, or at least what public service should be about. In France, similar to the US, the political center from center-left to center-right is about to fade away, with severe consequences for the country and entire Western world.

For sure there's a segment of electorate lost for any meaningful discourse, though some Le Pen (or Trump) voters remain persuadable with the right kind of messaging and actual problem solving. When 40-somewhat percent of a country no longer have trust in institutions, there's something not well. And nobody caring about the future and well-being of their nation should just take it as a given fact.

[wbrocks67]

While I'm incredibly reliefed Macron pulled this off, and it wasn't *that* close in the end, it's still WAY closer than it should have been, given Mademoiselle Le Pen is not some normal right of center politician. When over 40% vote for such a candidate, there's something wrong.

Macron, just like other Western leaders, need to figure out what to do with mostly rural voters that view globalization as a threat instead of an opportunity and who feel overwhelmed by rapid cultural changes. For sure, latter is kind of shortsighted, but these people are there and the govt needs to figure out a way to address their concerns. I know this is easy to write for me, though it's a challenge leaders have to take on.

In theory, yes, but voters memories are nonexistent at this point, so it's clear that some just bought into Le Pen's "rehabilitation" tour. So you could look at it two different ways, being that she tried to "moderate" herself this time around and still could barely crack 40%.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Given the outcome of the presidential election I'd say France and the EU live to fight another day, although with Le Pen's results in mind the sword of Damocles continues to hang above their heads.

It's problematic for a democracy that the executive and the legislative branch are so thoroughly dominated by a single political party on a seemingly permanent basis, while any meaningful opposition consists almost entirely of far-right and left-wing populist parties. That sounds a bit like Russia except that in France the election results are at least not rigged. In any case, France needs better opposition.

Speaking of Russia, I think the importance that Putin has failed to gain any sort of a foothold within Western Europe yesterday can't be stressed enough.

I share some of your toughts about Europe and the democracy. However, are you really tryng to establish a comparison between French and Russian politics? Is LREM equivalent to United Russia,  RN to the LDPR and LFI to the CPRF?

Also, I don't share the parallels that some people draw between far-right and leftwing populisms in Western Europe. In Russia the Putin's party, the LDPR and the communists share a staunch social reactionarism, contrary to progressive causes such as LGBT rights. In Western Europe far-right populists favor policies contrary to the the rights of migrants and other minorities, while leftwing populist parties usually favor inclusive policies. I wouldn't say LFI represents a risk for essential democratic values, despite I don't find Mélenchon pleasant at a personal level and I'm more Europeanist than him

It's clear that Macron doesn't run an authoritarian regime and nor will his presidency will become one. Any French party is probably also less extreme than any of their Russian "equivalents" you mentioned.

And yet, and I think that's the point I tried to make, it's clear that France currently resembles a dominant-party system with EM in charge and only extremist or populist parties challenging this dominance. This arguably leads to a situation where you need to vote for extremists (and one day they could very well end up in power that way) in order to vote against the powers that be.

[Tintrlvr]

Given the outcome of the presidential election I'd say France and the EU live to fight another day, although with Le Pen's results in mind the sword of Damocles continues to hang above their heads.

It's problematic for a democracy that the executive and the legislative branch are so thoroughly dominated by a single political party on a seemingly permanent basis, while any meaningful opposition consists almost entirely of far-right and left-wing populist parties. That sounds a bit like Russia except that in France the election results are at least not rigged. In any case, France needs better opposition.

Speaking of Russia, I think the importance that Putin has failed to gain any sort of a foothold within Western Europe yesterday can't be stressed enough.

I share some of your toughts about Europe and the democracy. However, are you really tryng to establish a comparison between French and Russian politics? Is LREM equivalent to United Russia,  RN to the LDPR and LFI to the CPRF?

Also, I don't share the parallels that some people draw between far-right and leftwing populisms in Western Europe. In Russia the Putin's party, the LDPR and the communists share a staunch social reactionarism, contrary to progressive causes such as LGBT rights. In Western Europe far-right populists favor policies contrary to the the rights of migrants and other minorities, while leftwing populist parties usually favor inclusive policies. I wouldn't say LFI represents a risk for essential democratic values, despite I don't find Mélenchon pleasant at a personal level and I'm more Europeanist than him

It's clear that Macron doesn't run an authoritarian regime and nor will his presidency will become one. Any French party is probably also less extreme than any of their Russian "equivalents" you mentioned.

And yet, and I think that's the point I tried to make, it's clear that France currently resembles a dominant-party system with EM in charge and only extremist or populist parties challenging this dominance. This arguably leads to a situation where you need to vote for extremists (and one day they could very well end up in power that way) in order to vote against the powers that be.

I don't really think this is true at all. Macron's party is very weak outside of Macron himself, and it's not clear at all that it will survive him leaving office. Far more likely is that Macron himself is what is taking up a lot of the air, and once he's out of the picture the other non-extreme parties will reassert themselves. The 2027 presidential election has the potential to be extremely multi-cornered with the top two perhaps having lower shares than even in 2002.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Given the outcome of the presidential election I'd say France and the EU live to fight another day, although with Le Pen's results in mind the sword of Damocles continues to hang above their heads.

It's problematic for a democracy that the executive and the legislative branch are so thoroughly dominated by a single political party on a seemingly permanent basis, while any meaningful opposition consists almost entirely of far-right and left-wing populist parties. That sounds a bit like Russia except that in France the election results are at least not rigged. In any case, France needs better opposition.

Speaking of Russia, I think the importance that Putin has failed to gain any sort of a foothold within Western Europe yesterday can't be stressed enough.

I share some of your toughts about Europe and the democracy. However, are you really tryng to establish a comparison between French and Russian politics? Is LREM equivalent to United Russia,  RN to the LDPR and LFI to the CPRF?

Also, I don't share the parallels that some people draw between far-right and leftwing populisms in Western Europe. In Russia the Putin's party, the LDPR and the communists share a staunch social reactionarism, contrary to progressive causes such as LGBT rights. In Western Europe far-right populists favor policies contrary to the the rights of migrants and other minorities, while leftwing populist parties usually favor inclusive policies. I wouldn't say LFI represents a risk for essential democratic values, despite I don't find Mélenchon pleasant at a personal level and I'm more Europeanist than him

It's clear that Macron doesn't run an authoritarian regime and nor will his presidency will become one. Any French party is probably also less extreme than any of their Russian "equivalents" you mentioned.

And yet, and I think that's the point I tried to make, it's clear that France currently resembles a dominant-party system with EM in charge and only extremist or populist parties challenging this dominance. This arguably leads to a situation where you need to vote for extremists (and one day they could very well end up in power that way) in order to vote against the powers that be.

I don't really think this is true at all. Macron's party is very weak outside of Macron himself, and it's not clear at all that it will survive him leaving office. Far more likely is that Macron himself is what is taking up a lot of the air, and once he's out of the picture the other non-extreme parties will reassert themselves. The 2027 presidential election has the potential to be extremely multi-cornered with the top two perhaps having lower shares than even in 2002.

Let's hope so... but until that happens it will come down to the situation described by me for the next five years.

[Oryxslayer]

Ideology:

On the topic of Ideology I have nothing to add about Macron and his platform. I am not Frenchman and that is a debate for the French people. 

I do however have something to add when it comes to Ideology in general, because this gets into questions of voter behavior,  social constructs, and representation - things that I have studied.

What makes something politically Right? What makes something politically Left? Or Centre? Or Extreme? Looking at history and examples from across the human tapestry of places and times, we see that there are few to no policies held in tandem by those who subscribed to those ideologies. Universality doesn't exist. Chances are,  if someone wants you to believe it exists, they subscribe to an Ideology that believes in Universality and wants all its members to subscribe to their tenants.

Instead,  what we see is policies are adjusted and changed constantly to allow for electoral success. Even those that seem most sacred in the moment may vanish with time.  Voters are similarly fluid, changing socioeconomic status, location,  and backgrounds with time. The world is similarly changing,  and both the voters and parties must adapt to forces outside their control. One might look at yesterday's map and Conclude that Le Pen was the candidate of the "left," given where she did best in relation to history, but that ignores all the changes both local and global that have changed the regions and their people. 

Only with this in mind can we begin to understand why a president who proposed a good number of policies which might have been once best viewed as "right" does not even come close to winning the "right," as seen above. Because people's and parties perceptions of each other changes, and nothing is stable, the spectrum of self-perceptions changes. Le Pens presence in national politics means that she is "right" to the voters, so Macron is "not-right" because he is not Le Pen.

From here we begin to understand what is said by constructivist, that Ideology is not solid fluid and relative. Voter views on big issues might not change quickly,  but where they see themselves because of the prominence or lack thereof of any particular facet at the present moment shifts easily. The political compass is a lie, especially when taken in context of individual national and temporal situations.

My favorite question to this end is what people think of the Bolsheviks and their October revolution.  You get all sorts of answers, from reactionary coup to triumph of the people  - and all are acceptable. There is no "correct" spectrum or ideological take - even in states where only one Ideology is legal - cause Ideology is personal and derived by your own perceptions of the time, place, and actors within society.

Instead, what is common between societies is the relativistic reactions to society. We all define ourselves by our differences from others, and our differences from the percepieved norm. No matter how egalitarian or wealthy your society, some people will always perceive themselves as more successful or struggling than what society expects. Some will always have different backgrounds of identity that differ from the masses. Some will always feel that they have failed to live up to expectations, and blame society,  themselves,  or others. This differences foster different worldviews. Some groups define themselves in contrast to or in opposition with other groups,  which leads to one defining the other as Right, the other as Left, and so on down the ages.

[Zinneke]

Let's lighten the mood a bit, the French "Onion" is on top form

https://mobile.twitter.com/le_gorafi/status/1518315296460791808

De Rugy of course, disgraced for his lavish lifestyle as an "ecologist" claiming obscene expenses and representing everything wrong with the average French politician.

This fake announcement was also good

https://mobile.twitter.com/le_gorafi/status/1518288666426105856

[rob in cal]

  What would be considered the most far right, or fascist, or extremist or otherwise horrible policy proposals that MLP proposed in her current campaign or that her party has in its platform?