OPINION | Democrats should act like France and unite against the far-right

Strangely, we find ourselves in the situation France found itself in before its recent elections: Like our allies, we face the threat of a right-wing government and the decline of a functional democracy, and like the UK, we face a crisis of functional government.

We are not a parliamentary system like the UK, nor a multiparty presidential system like France, and the US political landscape is certainly far more angrier and driven by individualism. Nevertheless, the victories of the French New Popular Front and the UK Labour Party are instructive because they were referendums on right-wing ideology delivered by a less-than-ideal coalition of the centre-left.

“The anti-far-right bulwark has worked. Not only has the left-wing coalition New Popular Front become the largest party in the National Assembly, but the party allied with Macron is the second largest, and the National Rally is only the third largest. France has said it clearly:Non’ “We are concerned about the possible emergence of a far-right government,” wrote former French ambassador to the United States, Gérard Allot. There was no love for some in the coalition. In fact, the election campaign was almost entirely about the fear of an oppositional, far-right government.

France’s political coalition was essentially a collection of bickering parties that could barely agree on anything except one basic issue. CNN reported:

A month ago, the NFP didn’t exist. Now it is the largest force in France’s parliament and could produce the country’s next prime minister. The NFP chose its name to try to revive the original Popular Front, which stopped the far-right from taking power in 1936. Sunday’s result means the NFP is trying to do so again.

This many-headed hydra does not speak with one voice. Each party celebrated the results in its own election campaign, not in unison. Its two most prominent figures, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the populist Indefatigable France, and Raphaël Glucksmann, leader of the more moderate Plus Public, have barely spoken a word.

The campaign against fascism was a success. Frankly, for most French voters it didn’t matter which faction won the prime ministerial seat. What mattered was defeating a movement that was antithetical to French identity (“liberty, equality, fraternity”).

Meanwhile, the major problem in the British parliamentary system was the failed rule of the Conservative and Unionist parties (“Tories”) after 14 years. The election was about, to borrow an American slogan, a return to normalcy. The winner as prime minister was Keir Starmer, who had replaced the notoriously anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party just four years earlier. Starmer eschewed far-left policy platforms and returned to the center. He has been criticized for being boring, but that may have been a positive. (As Politico put it, “boring mediocrity is arguably his greatest electoral asset.”) When one side is completely unacceptable in an election, the other needs to be acceptable, not extraordinary.

It was enough to position the election as a chance to drive the Conservatives out of the UK: “After 14 years in power, the Conservatives have paid the penalty for all the trouble they caused during their time in power: Brexit, which most Britons now regret. [Boris] The Partygate scandal saw the then Prime Minister party during the coronavirus lockdown, then lie about it, and then his successor deliver a disastrous 2022 Budget. [Liz] “The Truss affair sent shock waves through financial markets,” NPR reported.

It is a misconception that only a positive vision can unite and create a winning coalition. Sometimes it is fear of concrete and horrifying changes in one’s country or fatigue with gross incompetence that wins. Fear of chaos, mayhem, incompetence, and ideological rigidity, even if they are boring, can push voters to alternative options.

The MAGA guide to authoritarianism and extremism, Project 2025, and the Supreme Court’s radical rulings (e.g. allowing states to criminalize abortion, preventing government experts from setting rational standards, giving the president immunity, etc.) are the equivalent of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party. (Indeed, she stated quite frankly in 2017: “A new world has emerged in the last few years. It is the world of Vladimir Putin, the world of Donald Trump in the United States, and the world of the United States of America.” [Prime Minister Narendra] They form the basis of a reactionary authoritarian government that espouses Christian nationalism.

So the Democratic agenda in November will be to make this a referendum on right-wing extremism, and that’s exactly what the folks at the Lincoln Project have done.

For now, Biden is the leading Democratic candidate, but it is democracy that is on the ballot. To win, Democrats need to identify and explain the MAGA threat, which is as radical and frightening as the French far right and as hostile to government as competent as Conservatives.

Amid the furor surrounding Biden’s candidacy, wise voices within the Democratic Party have voiced a reasonable demand: Show us.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (R-New Mexico) issued a statement calling on Biden to “continue to demonstrate that his performance in the debate was simply terrible and that he has a clear path to defeat Donald Trump.” Sen. Jon Tester of Montana made a similar plea to Biden in a statement. “President Biden must prove to me and the American people that he can do the job for another four years.” Sen. Patty Murray (R-Wash.) also said, “We need to see a stronger, more energetic candidate on the campaign trail in the near future to convince voters that Biden can do the job.” On Wednesday, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (R-Calif.), Sen. Tim Kaine (R-Va.) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (R-N.H.) all signaled Biden still had a decision to make, but expressed confidence in his judgment.

That’s exactly the message Biden needs to hear. Biden has said he’s staying in office, and he can show everyone he can beat Trump. But he can’t expect Democrats and others who care about our democracy to just take his words at face value. Biden has a chance to break away from a structured campaign with few appearances and limited opportunities to go off script. He could hold town halls with rank-and-file voters, give interviews to battleground state media, or answer questions at a press conference for an hour or more.

The “less is more” mentality may have helped Biden govern successfully, but by adapting to his limitations and restrictions, the campaign made him look weak and vulnerable. The senators are right: it’s not enough. If Biden can’t show his vigor and his approval ratings don’t recover, I doubt these senators will be able to win. And other responsible Democrats will confront the president, publicly and privately. The risks are too great.

Adam Hochschild’s Midnight in America: World War I, Violent Peace, and the Forgotten Crisis of Democracy chronicles a frightening period in America: endemic violence, rampant racism, widespread xenophobia, unions under siege, eerie domestic surveillance, and declining civil rights. The book is not a portrait of the present, a retrospective of the Trump administration, or a preview of the next four years. Rather, it is a detailed account of the years 1917-1921, when America was thrown into turmoil by World War I and the Russian Revolution.

From violent attacks on the Industrial Workers of the World (“Wobblies”), to mass arrests of foreigners, to the suppression of any periodicals that smelt of socialism, to the imprisonment of citizens who spoke “unpatriotic,” the period Hochschild describes revealed America at its worst. While a minority actually participated in lynchings and vigilante acts, millions shrugged and watched as judges and juries punished citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights. There were a few sane voices in Congress and in Wilson’s administration who vehemently denounced bouts of authoritarianism, but they were rare exceptions.

So this is not the first time the United States has seen dark tendencies and authoritarian impulses. When we ignore fundamental principles like the rule of law, freedom of conscience, and limits on executive power, we should not be surprised at what happens.

Every other Wednesday at noon we will be hosting a Q&A session with our readers. Submit next question.