Viktorovitch – The disturbing speech of Emmanuel Macron

The scene could have been harmless. Last Monday, back to school day, Emmanuel Macron was visiting a school in Forbach, in Moselle. Flanked by his Minister of National Education, he strolls, inspects, questions. Cameras are present, of course. What good is such a trip, if not to catch some tasty images? Only here, the cameras are generally accompanied by their journalists. And these have a detestable habit: they ask questions.

He's one of those reporters which will provoke the ire of the President of the Republic. Asked several times about his communication strategy, Emmanuel Macron replied, annoyed: “Journalists have a problem. They care too much about themselves and not enough about the country. (…) You only talk to me about communication problems and journalist problems, you do not talk to me about the France."

Lire aussi ZaPolitics of September 5: the contested return to school of Emmanuel Macron

Let's stop for a moment, to be sure we understand. The President of the Republic is traveling to a school. He did not come to make decisions, conduct negotiations, gather information or start thinking. No, he's here to be filmed having lunch in the canteen with school children. He is here to shoot pictures and show his face. In a nutshell: he is here to communicate. And now a journalist would dare to question him about… his communication? What a quirk!

In short. Let's cut this couplet short: the hypocrisy of the remark is so confounding that it hardly deserves our attention. It is rather what transpires in the watermark that should challenge us. Because far from being an isolated event, this statement by the Head of State evokes other words. A few weeks ago, as his popularity rating plummeted and citizens seemed to show some apprehension with regard to the reforms to come, Emmanuel Macron declared: “French women and men hate reforms. (…) It's a people who hate that. »

These two statements are based on similar rhetorical springs. In either case, the reasoning hinges on an abusive generalization – “the French”, “the journalists” – which makes it possible to discredit an entire group of individuals on the basis of the supposed wrongs of one party. of them. As old as it is fallacious, the process can only attract our reprobation.

This generalization then makes it possible to open onto a very specific type of argument: the register ad personam. Rather than seeking to refute the position of his opponents, Emmanuel Macron works to disqualify the legitimacy of those he presents as adversaries. A reporter questions him bluntly about his communication? It's not that this is bad, it's the journalists who aren't interested in France. Opinion polls are cruel to the head of state? It is not that the reforms are questionable, it is the French who are not reformable.

With Macron or against France

We thus begin to guess, in the President of the Republic, a representation that is disturbing to say the least of his function. On the one hand, there would be Emmanuel Macron, devoted servant of this "heroic France" with which he intends to reconnect, and on the other the “forces of the old world”, stuck in the ideas of the past century. In such a vision of the world, whoever expresses a disagreement with the Head of State necessarily manifests his opposition with the interest of the country. We are with Macron, or against France.

I force the line, of course. Excessively, perhaps. There is no question of qualifying Emmanuel Macron as a potential dictator. But to recall this basic rule of democratic debate: in politics, nothing is ever intrinsically good or bad, fair or unfair. Everything is always a matter of choice and uncertainty. No one can claim to know the truth, no one has the monopoly of the national interest, and everyone has the right to express a disagreement without being, for all that, rejected among the adversaries of the nation. We can be against Macron, without being against France.