Finally, a politician who makes sense!

Martin Luther had a colleague at the University of Wittenberg named Philipp Melanchthon who was seriously influential in bringing humanism to Luther's thinking.  Melanchthon was heavily influenced by Erasmus, the Dutch Renaissance humanist.  That Luther's Reformation was a humanist endeavor owes much to this close friend.

And while Melanchthon and today's French Presidential candidate Mélenchon do not have absolutely identical names, they are remarkably similar, and better, their thinking is similarly enlightened.  Not surprisingly, the authorities are terrified of them both because thoughts like theirs have and will start reformations and revolutions.  As someone who tends to think of politicians as not especially bright or socially useful, this guy actually gives me some little hope.  And there is a damn good chance his political agenda will change the conversation in Europe—and goodness knows it needs changing.

I found the following description of Mélenchon over at Counterpunch.  I have absolutely NO idea how accurate this description is of the man.  But I am going to respond as if it is accurate.

Reconnecting With the Popular Classes of France

The Left Radicalism of Jean-Luc Mélenchon

by PHILIPPE MARLIERE  APRIL 17, 2012

Superbly ignored by the media until recently, Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the new flavour of the day in the French presidential campaign. In truth, while trying to account for his dramatic rise in the polls – latest reports put him at 17% of the vote – most commentators could not help pour scorn on the Left Front candidate.

A survey of the main articles recently published in the British media provides a compelling case study of political prejudice and misunderstanding. Mélenchon is described as an “Anglo-Saxon basher with a whiny voice” (the Independent), a “populist” who’s “on the hard-left” (all newspapers) and a “bully and a narcissist, out to provoke” (BBC). More sympathetic commentaries compare him to George Galloway or depict him as a “far-left firebrand”, a “maverick” and the “pitbull of anti-capitalism”.

As someone who has extensively studied and written about the People's Party of 1892, I tend to grow very impatient with folks who misuse the political term "Populist."  Populist is what these people called themselves and together with their documents provide us with a rather historically precise definition of what a Populist was.  This definition is NOT the one commonly used by intellectuals—especially European ones who use it as a catch-all insult.  For them, a populist is an ignorant lout who can be ignored by all manner of serious people because, well, just because we don't like those kind of people.  Ironically, Mélenchon is actually a pretty good example of the kind of leadership the folks who gathered in Omaha the summer 1892 were looking for.  Mélenchon, meet Ignatius Donnelly.

It is striking that the more favourable assessment of Mélenchon’s politics remains off the mark. Mélenchon is seen as a “lovable but old-fashioned leftwinger”. This fails to capture the essence of his political ambitions. Mélenchon’s rise has nothing to do with “1970s-style politics and nostalgia”, but is linked instead to his resolute take on the current capitalist crisis. He tells audiences that the austerity policies implemented across Europe are not only unfair but also counterproductive (even the Financial Times agrees). Mélenchon’s debating skills serve his cause, but he is also a lettered pedagogue: a dignified politician who has never participated in vulgar reality shows. What is more, Mélenchon is a French republican and a socialist, not a “far-left” or a fringe politician. He spent 30 years in the Socialist party unsuccessfully arguing that it should be a force at the service of ordinary workers, and he was a cabinet minister in Lionel Jospin’s government.

Oratory is politically useless if one does not have an important message to deliver. Mélenchon has one: neoliberalism has failed, so it would be suicidal to persist with its inadequate policies. The French MEP also had a credible programme. In didactically crafted speeches or in media interviews, he radically departs from mainstream politicians by explaining that the economic crisis is systemic, that is to say that it is due to our flawed political choices and priorities. Our societies have never been as productive and wealthy as today, but the majority of the population are getting poorer despite working harder and harder. The problem is not a question of wealth production (as neoliberals and Blairite social democrats would have us believe), but of redistribution of wealth.

In France raging pundits and opponents call the Left Front programme an “economic nightmare” or a “delirious fantasy”. Shouldn’t they instead use this terminology to describe the banking debacle or austerity policies across Europe? Mélenchon’s growing number of supporters view it as common sense and salutary: a 100% tax on earnings over £300,000; full pensions for all from the age of 60; reduction of work hours; a 20% increase in the minimum wage; and the European Central Bank should lend to European governments at 1%, as it does for the banks. Here are a few realistic measures to support impoverished populations. Is this a revolution? No, it is radical reformism; an attempt to stop the most unbearable forms of economic domination and deprivation in our societies. Fat cat bosses may leave France; they will be replaced by younger and more competent ones who will work for a fraction of their wages.

The productivity of the workforce in USA since 1980 has roughly doubled.  If those gains had been given back to the workers in the form of time off instead of making greedy pigs even richer, the workweek would now be something like 19 hours.

“Humans First!” is more than a manifesto title, it is a democratic imperative: a sixth republic in place of the current republican monarchy; the nationalisation of energy companies (as energy sources are public goods) and, less often noticed, the ecological planning of the economy, the core of Mélenchon’s political project.

Mélenchon has done French democracy a further favour. In a memorable TV debate, he emphatically defeated the extreme right for the first time in 30 years. Concentrating on policy details, Mélenchon demonstrated that Marine Le Pen’s programme was regressive for women. Furthermore, he smashed to pieces the myth of the Front National as a party that has the working class’s best interests at heart. Le Pen appeared lost for words and ill at ease.

Mélenchon’s campaign politicises the young. He appeals to the working class, which, contrary to some claims, has largely shunned Le Pen and which has been abstaining from the vote. For the first time in decades, Mélenchon is helping the left to reconnect with the popular classes. For Mélenchon, free market politics does not work and inflicts unnecessary suffering on the people. No other European politician is better placed than he is to convincingly argue that point.

(Philippe Marlière is a Professor of French and European politics at University College London (UK). He can be reached at:p.marliere@ucl.ac.uk)

As I keep saying, the "left" lost the narrative when it abandoned economics for cultural politics during the 1970s.  Here in Minnesota, the DFL—the party that once elected a governor who called out the National Guard to defend the workers in a strike—passed a resolution a few years back calling for their convention to be "fragrance free."  Not exactly armed conflict in the streets over the material circumstances of life, huh?