France is the one place where democracy works broadly as we would expect it to. Political parties that fail their voters collapse and disappear. Politicians who are hated seem upset at the fact, and do not hide their hurt behind forced smiles. The ‘angry mob’, a fixture of our political imagination, has on more than one occasion in French history actually succeeded in deposing the Government. France has a flourishing extreme Left, but also a flourishing extreme Right. Politicians openly steal from the treasury instead of laundering their theft in opaque ways. The military, which has all the weapons, does actually threaten violence from time to time. One British cliché about France is its love of street protest. But this speaks more to Britain’s strangeness than to France’s. In France, all factions in public life are allowed to take to the streets – as we would well expect in a liberal democracy. In Britain, by contrast, crowds are selectively policed.
Other democracies seem haunted and lunar by comparison. The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has held power for 63 of the past 67 years. German politics is dominated by immovable Grand Coalitions that last for decades. Everyone of importance in American politics is over the age of 75. British prime ministers are bundled from office by quangos and civil servants.
If democratic gravity seems to apply only in France, then we can assume that politics there still turns on votes, coalitions and appeals – not, as it does here, on the mysteries of the Ministerial Code. Judging by recent events, this is a brute lesson that Emmanuel Macron has yet to learn.
Another British cliché about France is that its current President wants to keep a ‘Jupiterian’ distance from the din of party. Otto von Bismarck was the only democratic politician who has ever carried this off. He famously had no party of his own, and held the Reichstag in contempt. Macron’s great failing isn’t this conceit, but that he hasn’t been remotely conceited enough. Bismarck was convinced that he was Germany’s indispensable man, and would not stoop to ally himself with anyone else for very long. He first played the liberal, then the anti-Catholic, then the reactionary. He built up allies only to destroy them; he would careen first to the Left and then to the Right, a wild political see-saw that he always managed to straddle.
Macron does not have this room for manoeuvre, despite his boasts of independence. He is above all the representative of those who elected him, and could not abandon them even if he wanted to. The social base of Macron’s presidency is the country’s class of civil servants – spendthrift, obstinate, and comprising around a fifth of the population. This class is the defender France’s current economic model, in which mass migration is used to pay for a system of pensions, venal offices and direct cash payments. This senile pyramid scheme, which is not unique to France, does not even work as advertised – a 2018 study showed that the contribution of migrants to the French treasury was either negligible or slightly negative.
The ruin of the old parties, the centre-Left Socialists and the centre-Right Republicans, left this class by 2017 with no organised political force except for the neophyte Macron – something that Macron’s predecessor, Francois Hollande, was quick to grasp. It fell to Macron not so much to bring about his own programme of reform, but to simply fulfil the old constitutional role of blocking the National Front every five years.
Beyond performing this simple task, the French governing classes are not interested in Macronism. His liberal ideas are at best secondary, at worst an annoyance – hence the exaggerated sighs when it comes time for them to collude with him to thwart the nationalists; a manoeuvre that relies on a quirk of the voting system especially designed for this purpose. Macron’s project is contradictory; he speaks of a rotten economic system, but his support is made up of those who prosper under it. With his pension reform Macron invites France’s bureaucratic class to abolish its own privileges and then thank him for it. Calonne, another would-be French reformer, once invited the country’s nobility to do much the same – with similar results.
Any reform of France, then, means war to the knife against its civil service. It by definition sets one on a populist course, if not a demagogic one. France’s current pension entitlements are unaffordable, and there is something grotesque about the surprising number of young people who have been called out onto the streets to defend a system that will enslave them with debt. Macron now needs a crowd of his own, and this means a popular programme. An end to the policy of mass migration would not only earn support from France’s Right, but is the logical conclusion of pension reform. Macron’s task is not one of reform, but destruction – the destruction of a class that is ruining France. When Louis Napoleon crowned himself as Napoleon III in 1852, one of his first acts was to steal all the property of France’s defunct monarchy. The Countess Lehon quipped that this was “the first vol of the eagle”, vol meaning both ‘flight’ and ‘steal’. So too for Macron, and he would be stealing from all the right people.
J. Sorel is a pseudonym.
Stop Press: Dan Hannan says Macron is ready to betray Taiwan in a vainglorious effort to establish the EU as a ‘third pole’ in the bi-polar world order.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Because >60% of men, can think critically and believe in fundamental principles (freedom, work, self reliance etc). Not all men, but most. However, most women do not. <40% of women believe in such principles, a majority believe in state power, ‘the science’, authority and diktat including gender fascism. Not all but a majority.
Personally I am against women having the right to vote, or for that matter, anyone without assets. The reason is simple – 100 years ago a penis was a penis, today it is a vagina, and ‘the science’, with the majority support of the female is now the religion of dictatorship.
There are certain things about the nature of men and women which can be clearly observed and are hard to deny that simply cannot be discussed openly in modern “liberal” societies.
But the denial of reality always carries a price.
I blame men as much as I do women for this. Men should stand up for truth and reality and not be so easily browbeaten into going along with deluded fantasy.
Part of Reality is that it’s so easy to end up in a cell overnight, at the very least, and losing your job (and income). And if you’re not fully briefed, and have the required vocabulary to hand, it can be very traumatic, which makes holding your own against ‘the professionals’ that much harder, and doomed.
Personally I think it would be wrong to deny women the right to vote. That argument is unlikely to sway you, which is fair enough, but I also think it’s just not very practical. We need to learn to coexist and reach a compromise as women make up half the population and are required to keep us going. We just need to convince more people that our views will lead to a better life, regardless of sex.
It would be good to get a psychologist’s take on this because it’s a mystery. Regarding Germany, it’s like many young women haven’t had enough of being raped, sexually assaulted or seeing fellow citizens being stabbed. Nobody can be that asleep or apathetic!
Is it that young women are more prone to falling for propaganda? It would be interesting to take it further and see if there’s a difference in voting habits between university educated women vs non-uni educated women in this age range.
I don’t think it’s all that mysterious. Women have evolved to be more nurturing so they find “niceness” more appealing and the big selling point of the left is “niceness” (it’s a fake niceness of course).
Personally I am not sure there’s much to be gained by focusing on this “difference”, others may disagree.
But the study Noah references above is for women up to the age of 29yrs. So what about the rest of us? I think age features as a significant factor here. But that fact won’t stop the resident Misogynist Society rolling out their tired old “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote”, “It’s women that are the cause of the downfall of the universe” arguments. 100% predictable and indicative of the general attitude of men towards the opposite sex on here. After all, it’s not what people ( same old names, never fails ) post but what people *don’t* post, that I find most revealing, IYKWIM.
“Silence is compliance” and all that.
To say that women should be denied the basic right to vote, just because of how a certain % of them have voted, is authoritarian and as irrational as a government banning the sale of all alcohol because some people abuse it and become alcoholics. So what about the people who drink responsibly or don’t drink at all? It’s totally nonsensical. Essentially, I’m being judged purely on the basis of me having a vagina, not on the fact I’m an individual with my own independent and unique thought processes. Make it make sense.
It’s a generalisation so as such will not apply to all equally, but women are surely in general evolved to be more nurturing regardless of their age.
When a land is conquered, the men are eliminated, and the women get ‘more exciting’ partners.
It’s always been like it, and it could easily continue in liberal times.
If girls are persistently told that that their career is their most important goal, but they only realise that their biological clock is ticking away in their thirties, no wonder the results are as they are, for women under thirty.
I think this is exactly right. In a nutshell, women have more of a natural tendency to be empathetic and caring, and the left uses this to its advantage by painting itself in this veneer of “kindness”.
Men, I would say, are probably more sceptical and cynical by nature.
But if that’s the case why aren’t women being “empathetic and caring” towards their own sex? So this doesn’t necessarily translate when we look at the reality on the ground. Women are screwing other women over, and they’re not in a trance, they’re not even under pressure most of the time, they’re doing it willingly and consciously. Women abusing women’s rights! I mean, have you ever?
Good point, however, I am in my late 70s and married for 57 years and I have found that my wife and many of her contemporaries have moved dramatically to the Right. Following my teenage years as a budding young Communist, I have always been well to the right – the girls were always better looking on that side.
However, now, many political discussions I have with women are always well to the right and I wonder if the author’s perception is skewed by asking young men and women rather then more mature ones.
This was precisely my point. I’m in my late 40s and have a completely different mindset than I did 20+ years ago. But this sort of article is what the women-haters jump all over because then they get to conveniently tar us all with the same brush with their, “This is why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” sexist nonsense, because to make sweeping generalisations bolsters their argument, in their eyes. All of us women get judged.
However, as soon as reality is acknowledged ( such as the acceptance that woketard men and anti-woke women, who are usually older, exist ) their lame, misogynist argument falls apart.
Who in their right mind would wish to deprive all women of their rights due to the actions of a certain segment of the female voting population? These men will be the very same who demonstrate their hypocrisy by pretending to be pro-democracy when what they’re advocating here is nothing more than authoritarianism.
Maybe
My Mrs is fortunately on the same wavelength as I am
This OAP has drifted rightward over a lifetime, gathering speed during The Pandemic That Never Was and blown along merrily by the Winds of Climate Change.
As regards what used to be quaintly called The Battle of the Sexes, much has changed for good, bad and indifferent.
All a mere man can do is stand ground and tell it how it is. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell your spouse what she doesn’t want to hear (and vice-versa).
Most recently, yesterday afternoon. You can’t beat a good ding dong. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – rancid goose and pickled gander always was notoriously unappetising. C’est la vie, c’est a guerre.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, shock, horror – men and women are different and think differently.
As I am a father of a boy and a girl, I can categorically state that from the moment they were born, they were different.
Patriarchy tends to create stable societies. Armies are suited for men’s mindset. There is a sense of purpose, solidarity, hierarchy and discipline. (Again, first hand experience, as I spent some time in the army.)
Matriarchal structures are inherently unstable, or at least far less stable. The emotional state of women fluctuates like their hormones; the emphasis on feelings and compassion is great for nurturing children but leaves them defenseless against brute force and hard decisions.
The entire woke movement and political ideology based on feelings, grievances and a sort of fake, syrupy, Meghan Markle style toxicity alienates the traditional male voters. What attraction could there be for a real man (not a soy-boy) for these ideas?
“Patriarchy tends to create stable societies.” What, like Afghanistan, Pakistan etc? Yep, Islam sure is the ultimate blueprint on how to produce a stable society via the subjugation of females and the overall abuse of their human rights.
Or maybe the UAE is more up your street?
I only said tend to, nothing more.
And yes, of course men are also prone to fighting and aggression.
Besides, it would be difficult to deny that Islam – a strongly masculine ideology – has survived about 1400 years. So, whether we like it or not (and I very much don’t), there is undoubtedly a cohesive force in it.
But I’m willing to be open minded.
Please give me a historical example of a working, stable matriarchal society.
A real example, not some feminist concoction.
But I’m not the one talking about a “matriarchal society”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said those two words together in my life. I’m pulling you up on that point about patriarchy because it’s as if you’re ignoring the massive elephant in the room, so please keep your strawman. For any society to be both stable and successful there must be balance, adherence to meritocracy and irrefutable biological facts, which is why no societies can thrive unless all things ‘woke’ get kicked to the kerb. The dreaded DEI being an obvious example, (trans)gender ideology another.
I’m confused.
What is the elephant in the room?
Islam. Hardly countries to laud given what rules apply and human rights abuses go on in those societies. ”Stable” is not the first word that would spring to my mind. But I guess if you like the idea of a bit of Sharia then it’s all good. I prefer a bit of democracy, myself.
Out of interest, what rank did you get to MM? Is there a hidden clue? :))
Haha, I hate to disappoint you, but I am not an army major. I did serve in the army, as I had to do national service when I was 18.
MajorMajor is a jocular name my university friends came up with.
Is it a Catch-22 reference?
Good name nonetheless! I suspect Nat Service worked quite well in the 50s/60s. Can’t see it working again.
The old elites have deployed their minions to promise greater recognition for women and matters that concern them. Men have reflexively been demonised and their concerns dismissed.
A difference in this political treatment of the sexes leads to differential support by men and women. Hardly an earth shaking idea.
I think it could be summed up as “boys have worked out that left-wing policies don’t work in their interests and they’re fed up with it.”
And they’re quite right.
Ask Jordan Peterson, men are naturally more disagreeable than women, which means they will value freedom and so small government more. Women are more prone to big government intervention because of the natural mothering instinct which is significantly interventionist. Small government is a balance between the two, and the proper name for so called right wing, or facists as they are now misnamed by the EU and UK government and media. The men are finally waking up to the fact that critical theory equality is bullying crap and a recipe for disaster. In the end the ultimate equality is heat death which critical theory is the political version of. Life needs difference as a driver , like gravity and the freedom to move to work properly.
Just to be clear, the necessary difference driver is in the context of a common or equal basic structure for life. This is not an excuse for differentialists to undermine this basic structure, freedom is a reciprocal thing
Women having the vote has not led to progress anywhere.
As far as can see.
Speaking as a female, I don’t think women having the vote is the problem. Promoting women into senior positions, when they haven’t earned it through performance/delivery, has caused it.
Yes, another failure of DEI. Appointments to senior positions should be by meritocracy alone.
Sometimes the right person for the job will be female, sometimes male. Equal opportunity is a good thing, of course, but merely wanting to hire more women, or ethnic minorities, or LGBWHATEVERS to “reflect society” is suicidal.
Employ the best person for the job, full stop.
I would say promoting *anybody* into senior positions when they haven’t earned it is a recipe for disaster. The sex of the person doesn’t even come into it. For instance, what good did the likes of Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer ever do for the U.K and its people? Just two examples of many, but you are either competent at your job and capable of delivering or you’re not.
One generalisation that it may be safe to make is that our politicians of both sexes are inept to the point of malevolence? The good ones can be counted on one hand
A refreshingly fair and accurate observation from a guy, based on reality, as opposed to the usual finger pointing and resorting to the ‘blame game,’ which I’ve come to expect from a large contingent of posters with a shared hostile attitude towards the opposite sex on this topic. But you’re spot on.
I don’t think it’s a “large contingent” of posters with a shared hostile attitude towards the opposite sex on this topic. It’s certainly a few with idiotic beliefs about women. Maybe you are paying more attention than I am, or we have different understanding of what we mean by a “large contingent”. I’d estimate it’s about 4 or 5 posters. If you think it’s more, you should list them, name and shame. That would be fun!
But what you’re not considering when I use that term is the vast majority who silently agree with said women-haters, by virtue of the fact they never ever challenge misogynists’ posts. It seems to be the unspoken rule of the Boys’ Club on here: “Never challenge another man when he’s badmouthing women in general”, otherwise known as:”Sexism is acceptable as long as it’s the right kind of sexism”.
Because I never see anyone ( including women, BTW) challenging certain posters the obvious conclusion is that it’s because the majority agree with the person. Well, it’s either that or cowardice. It’s got to be one or the other.
That’s why I said elsewhere that it’s often not *what* people post but what they *don’t* post which is the most telling of all. They close ranks, are scared to ruffle feathers. Look at all that drama with the paedophile and rape apologists on here. Minimising the crimes of the rape gangs and legitimising sex with minors. Several men on here actually defended them and came after me instead for calling them out. What does that tell you? Such sicko creeps should be condemned not defended! So I’ll stick with my “large contingent” because people have shown who they really are, both through their posts but mainly through not posting. And this is not just the odd time either, it’s consistently, with very few exceptions.
That’s absolutely true.
By the way my original comment doesn’t mean I don’t think women should have the vote, as citizens of course they should.
Just that objectively by most measures the quality of government has got worse not better since they did, I don’t know to what extent there may be a valid correlation.
For example I think you could legitimately say that people whose livelihood comes mainly from government employment contracts shouldn’t have the vote.
That’s a shocking conflict of interest when you think about it.
Possibly well evidenced by the string of soppy social workers in uniform that appear on TV parading as senior police officers. You can’t really blame them for taking the big salary and fat pension if the system offers it to them. They go to lefty universities and show all the required lefty ideals when it comes to promotion boards who value such nonsense.
I agree – but neither has universal male suffrage.
Because men are more protective generally and hot topics of conservatism tends to be around immigration, or “other tribes”. We are just angry apes.
Women are more nurturing generally and hot topics of liberalism tends to be around “being nice”, at least outwardly.
It’s that simple really.
This nonsense about not giving women the vote is a joke, I know many people who I’d see without the vote and they’re equal between the sexes.
I’d sooner have some sort of test to establish vote competency, whatever form that would take.
Men who think women shouldn’t vote and are obsessed with tarring us all with the same brush are showing their true colours, because for that to even begin to make sense they must ignore all of the woketard men and the rational, anti-woke women that exist, so that does kind of provide an unwelcome reality check, does it not? But they are intent on scapegoating us, no matter what, so what can you do…?
If you had to chose which one to give the vote to between Katharine Birbalsingh or Ed Miliband – christened Ed Siliband by a GB News viewer this morning – who would it be? I can assure you I would take the former while the latter is wrapped in a white coat with long sleeves and taken away.
Well exactly. Personally, I judge people by their actions. Not their words and definitely not their gender. And Katherine does nicely contradict and effectively give the ‘two-fingured salute’ to the many men who think women in charge of anything is a bad idea as we’re all so obviously inept.
How many countries just now have female leaders compared with males? And how many of those countries with men at the helm are rife with corruption, crime-ridden, woketastic or just sh*tholes? Just as well “correlation doesn’t prove causation”, isn’t it?
“Personally, I judge people by their actions. Not their words…”
Oh? But you judged me solely by my words in your comment to my post above…. Paleface speak with forked tongue, Kimosabi.
Erm…and how is one supposed to judge a person by their actions online? Desperate tactics, much?
Time to move to South Korea then.
One of the reasons I think women don’t tend to vote for right wing groups is highlighted by some of the comments below the article. They aren’t spaces that are that welcoming to women. We’re not daft.
This of course equally applies to why men are moving away from left wing parties – left wing parties don’t appear to value them. Men too aren’t daft.
Who knows. maybe it is all a giant plan to keep men and women divided whilst the real villains lurk in the shadows, having a good old laugh at us.
Because your survey asks questions in a loaded way to elicit precisely this result. Divide and conquer.
There is a growing trend and not just in western countries but all over the world where girls are out-performing boys in terms of university matriculation and performance. This is some sort of diminution of male energy worldwide. I think it has to be understood on a greater level. I don’t think it is solely due to the political realm because it is happening in Muslim countries as well. We are subject to all sorts of forces than we haven’t begun to understand.
Little girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice. Little boys are made of rats and snails and puppy dog tails.
Because boys generate the most wealth in an economy and pay for girls wants and needs and the Left is all about greed, the desire to take another’s money to be spent on me-me-me. Girls have become parasites aka equality… except in sports where suddenly boys and girls aren’t equal.
Socialism: A and B sit down together to decide what C will do for D.
“Girls have become parasites…” What’s that you were saying about me being a “misandrist” again?
You are aware of the meaning of the word ‘projection’, I take it? Or maybe not, given self-awareness never was the strong suit of the typical misogynist. 
“Typical misogynist”. Name calling – the redoubt of the intellectually weak unable to form a cogent response to the point being made.
Parasite = organism that lives at the expense of others = Socialist/Left wing.
What, like how you accused me of being a misandrist, with zero evidence? But I’m accurately describing you as a misogynist, with masses of evidence that you consistently manage to provide yourself? Bit of a difference there, methinks. Hypocrite.
You stick with name-calling, unsubstantiated accusations and spouting your contemptuous vitriol about the opposite sex due to your obvious grievance mentality and superiority complex, I’ll stick with making accurate assessments of posters based on much evidence observed from reading their posts ( inc the silent agreement from those who choose not to post ) over the years.
You hate women. Fact.
Perhaps like me the boys have always had the same outlook it’s just everyone else has moved to the left.