JEAN-MARIE LE PEN (THE NATIONAL FRONT)

THE PATRIOT'S TALKING-POINTS (2001)

Established in 1972 by former French paratrooper Jean‑Marie Le Pen (b. 1928), the National Front established itself as Europe's most prominent party of right‑wing, anti-immigrant nationalism throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Generally winning around 15 percent of the popular vote in France, the National Front won seats in local governments, the French National Assembly, and the European Parliament. In addition to promoting various plans to expel both legal and illegal immigrants from France, Le Pen has harshly critiqued European integration as a violation of France's sovereignty and a diminution of its power. In his run for the presidency of France in the elections of 2002, Le Pen published on his campaign Web page “talking points” designed for use by his supporters in convincing their friends and neighbors to vote for National Front candidates.

Following are excerpts from the “talking points” on the topic of “Eurofederalism,” written in a style meant to teach National Front supporters how to respond to their friends' statements and questions. In April 2002, Pen stunned the French political establishment by placing second in the first round of the presidential election with 17 percent of the vote (the first‑place candidate, the conservative Jacques Chirac, had received 20 percent of the vote in a field that included sixteen candidates). Two weeks of protests and demonstrations followed in France as millions sought to distance themselves, and France, from Le Pen's positions. Students especially led the demonstrations protesting Le Pen's policies toward immigrants, and business leaders warned of economic disaster if France sought to pull out of the European Union. In the runoff election, Chirac easily defeated Le Pen, receiving 82 percent of the vote to Le Pen's 18 percent.

They say: “But Europe is on the march. It can no longer be stopped.”

Response: Well, yes [it can be stopped]! For in a democracy, the nation is the depositary of sovereignty and is therefore free to choose its destiny. The popular will thus expresses itself beyond the signature of a treaty [1] because:

(1) The political has priority over the judicial, and an international accord is not able to supersede the Fundamental Laws of France, ratified by 2000 years of history and

(2) It is sufficient to denounce the treaty....

They say: “But we retain the possibility of controlling what occurs at the European level.”

Response:

(1) But we no longer control anything! Previously, to impose a European law it was necessary to have unanimous consent of the states. If a single state refused, this law was not adopted. Today, if a majority appears at the center of the states, it is possible to impose on a people something that they do not want. By this, our production of un-pasteurized cheese soon will be forbidden, and we will be obliged to accept night shifts for women. [2]

(2) In numerous areas, power belongs even to non-elected technocrats. The French law court becomes simply a chamber to register Brussels’ [3] laws. Democracy–that is to say, the power that people possess to make their own laws‑disappears to the advantage of the power of the “experts.”

They say: “It is necessary to make a federal Europe because the European economies are more and more interdependent.”

Response:

(1) But the economic does not control the political, except in the view of Marxists and the ultraliberal supporters of the new world order. In democracy and the Republic, the primacy of politics is simply the possibility for people to choose the economic, foreign, and social policies that they wish. The people remain the people, interdependent or not.

(2) This interdependence is, moreover, very relative. Since the beginning of the century, Japan and the United States have not ceased to protect their domestic market. On the other hand, France and Germany have opened themselves more and more to commercial exchanges and immigration. “The imbrication [4] of economies” concerns only the Europeans and resembles less interdependence than a veritable dependence on the United States and Japan ....

They say: “Sovereignty, at the moment of economic globalization, is no longer worth speaking about. We must conform ourselves to this evolution.”

Response:

(1) Globalization is the alibi for all of our renouncements. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall [1989], many people think that everything is radically new. But international commercial and financial relations are very ancient, as is, moreover, travel to foreign lands. And this never prevented nations from being sovereign this is to say, from choosing freely their destiny. Recent economic studies have demonstrated that at the beginning of the century, the economies were even rather more open than those of today. And this did not prevent the First World War, a conflict between sovereign nations. It is the globalist ideology that wants to make globalization a radical novelty that would render the sovereignty of nations obsolete ....

They say: “It is necessary to create federal Europe because there is a European civilization.”

Response: The existence of a community of civilization that unites the different Europe peoples is not contestable. This civilization is based on a specific genius (organizational genius, creative and constructive genius, technical genius); common values (Christianity, individualism, liberty...); a similar mode of life (food and clothing customs...).

(1) But a civilization does not create a nation; the existence of a common civilization does not signify that a European nation exists, which itself will justify a European state. The Islamic civilization exists, but there is no universal Islamic state because the sentiment of attachment to the national community, the place of expression for deeply profound emotional and cultural solidarities, has priority over all other sentiments of attachment.

(2) The European Union in any case forgets the foundational values of the civilization of our continent. The European civilization is precisely that of a free and equal people‑this is to say, the civilization of the diversity of national cultures. A federal Europe would deny this diversity. This standardization, contrary to the European tradition, moreover denies the carefully considered interest of Europe itself. Today, federal Europe is a flag of convenience that disguises the progression of American civilization, a simple mode of materialist life resting on the benevolent virtues of mass consumption.

They say: “Nationalism is old-fashioned, past its prime.”

Response: But what has been proposed to us? A large federal structure with a very important bureaucratic apparatus in the hands of specialists in economic and legal questions. This administrative dinosaur corresponds to the organizational schemes of the 1950s, strongly marked by the Soviet system. Our era, where the rapid flux of communication is essential, calls for the opposite‑for structures less rigid and thus able to react rapidly. The hour is past for centralized decision making but for cooperation, participation, and the association of small organizations on timely projects. This is why the nation is now better than all the federal models.

They say: “It is necessary to create federal Europe so that there will never again be war in Europe. Europe is peace.”

Response:

...

(3) The best means to avoid nationalistic warfare is precisely to respect the liberty of nations. In effect, when the liberty of the people is misunderstood, it always ends by breaking their chains. The destinies of the last empires in Europe show this clearly. The former USSR and the former Yugoslavia crumbled under the violent attacks of the people, giving rise to terrible wars. It is, thus, precisely the negation of national identities that leads to war.

NOTES

1. Any of the treaties of unification.

2. Two French traditions that have been altered by European Union regulations.

3. Belgian city that is the headquarters for the European Union.

4. Overlapping.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. According to Le Pen, where does sovereignty originate? Where does it reside?

2. How does Le Pen criticize bureaucratic experts?

3. How does Le Pen understand the idea of European “civilization”? On what basis does he assert the importance of national identity?

4. What is Le Pen's attitude toward the United States? Of what significance would “Western civilization” be to Le Pen?