IDoes Valérie Pécresse’s campaign have a patina? The fault of Emmanuel Macron, the overhanging president who entered the race too late. Éric Zemmour, more dangerous than it seems despite a dip in his campaign? An ideologue, more fond of concepts than reality. The rallies of the last hour to the macronie? Opportunists of the worst kind.
Julien Aubert, deputy of Vaucluse and holding a hard line within the Republicans, appointed spokesperson for Valérie Pécresse last January, does not want to let it be known that his candidate would be in distress. On the contrary, he intends to oppose project against project to demystify a president installed in the clothes of “communicating”. “Chameleon”, according to Valérie Pécresse, at a meeting in Nîmes this Thursday, March 17, where the spokesperson received the candidate of rediscovered French pride. And, as often in politics, the best defense is attack.
Point : In view of the bad polls which systematically give her behind Marine Le Pen, it is clear that Valérie Pécresse is no longer the candidate best placed to beat Emmanuel Macron in the second round. How to make predictions lie?
Julian Aubert: First, we didn’t really enter into the crystallization of opinions because there wasn’t really a campaign. A president who does not want to debate, Marine Le Pen who does not consider it useful to confront her adversaries directly, news crushed by the war in Ukraine… All these factors contribute to making the campaign invisible. It is therefore not certain that the polls reflect the real level of interest of the French for the subject. Then I believe that the week before the first round, people will understand that Emmanuel Macron will, in all likelihood, qualify for the second round and the question will inevitably become: which candidate to win against him? Who is able to embody a credible and competent alternative? From this point of view, no one blames Valérie Pécresse for her lack of experience, qualification or even will. She is undoubtedly the most capped candidate of this election.
READ ALSOPresidential – Valérie Pécresse: “I killed Zemmour! »
You talk about competence, but a lot of questions have been asked about the personality of the candidate, her supposed lack of charisma, her gestures, her voice… Do you deplore it like others or do you consider that the election presidential election, in line with Gaullism, is it also the meeting of a people and a man, in this case a woman?
One thing is certain, it is that ideas are not everything. You are right, there is indeed, as in any presidential election, a form of meeting, of communion between the French and their representatives which must take place. There are ideas, but also personalities. Some call it charisma. What is quite unfortunate is that when Emmanuel Macron shouted in his meetings with a few tremolos in his voice, no one held them against him. Basically, I find it unfair to criticize someone for their appearance or the way they speak. Then, I remember that Valérie Pécresse willingly admits not having been particularly good in form during her big meeting at the Zénith. But she knew how to completely review her way of hosting public meetings, as we saw later at Le Cannet for example or during her debate with Éric Zemmour. I think that to govern France, competence, ideas, what we want to achieve, character, resilience, is just as important, if not more important.
READ ALSOPécresse at the Zenith: eloquence, a presidential prerequisite?
Does Valérie Pécresse face a form of misogyny as she denounced?
I think that in politics, more than elsewhere, we tolerate fewer things from women than from men.
On the right, it was explained that the duel with the President of the Republic would eventually settle, that the entry into the campaign of Emmanuel Macron would lower him by a few points, that the war in Ukraine would eventually revive Valérie Pécresse, candidate of the seriousness and credibility, but none of that happened…
I believe that the fear of war, the nuclear threat, to which are added the problems of purchasing power, lead to a form of withdrawal, of a rather legitimist vote, which we have already seen in other circumstances, Moreover. This is reflected for the moment in the polls, but it is still a fairly short-term phenomenon. As we move away from the initial shock, the stunning effect will be less important. I think people will start by analyzing in a more rational way what is happening, the decisions that are made or not made. Look, for example, at what happened at the time of Covid. At first, it was important not to dispute what was decided by the Elysée with regard to the health situation. Eventually, people realized that a whole series of bad decisions had been made. Regarding Ukraine, personally, I consider that Emmanuel Macron, contrary to what has been said a lot, has lost his place as mediator by choosing to follow in Washington’s footsteps, particularly on the military side, which led to a form of radicalization of the Kremlin.
I would say that Éric Zemmour has one main flaw: that of defending the coherence of his thought, whatever the cost.
For his part, is Éric Zemmour a definitively discredited candidate?
I would say that Éric Zemmour has one main flaw: that of defending the coherence of his thought, whatever the cost, by focusing solely on the confrontation of opinions, the debate of ideas, but ignoring realities. On the question of Ukrainian refugees, he proposed a form of “non-reception” which is quite consistent and logical with his initial thought, but which places him in flagrant contradiction with the political feelings of the French. This shows that on political subjects and in particular on sensitive issues such as taking charge of the disabled, speaking out in public is a delicate art and that the politician cannot only be a thinker, but also a manager who must imagine which is practicable. This notion of practicability, adaptability, even pragmatism, I think Éric Zemmour lacks. Which harmed him in the Ukrainian affair. He is rhetoric without consistency when he says that Islam and Islamism are the same thing. Concretely, what does this change in relation to the policy that is carried out from the moment it does not close all the mosques? On the contrary, it shows that he is ultimately doing the same thing as us, that is to say, fighting the most radical Islamic fundamentalists. Words do not make a policy.
READ ALSOAccused of “acute poutinitis”, the sovereigntist candidates assume
I find that Valérie Pécresse has a lot of courage in trying to talk about substance, solutions and ideas.
After Renaud Muselier, regional president, it is Martine Vassal, another figure of the local right in Marseille, who has chosen to support Emmanuel Macron. You are a deputy for Vaucluse, has the South become a land of conquest for the majority?
For years, we were told that the Paca region would be the laboratory of the right, it must have been the terrible place of alliances between the right and the far right. At the time, we pointed the finger at these elected southerners, guilty of temptations, but I note in the end and with a little irony that the merger took place, but not where we expected it… Me, I am remained loyal to my political family. I also note that this rallying to the macronists in no way proceeds from a frank adherence to ideas rather from small calculations, varying according to the well-understood interests of each other. I just notice that these people who hated each other in the Republicans now find themselves in the same party. Unfortunately, all this is not to encourage the French to go to the polls. For me, it is to disgust you to go and vote. Secondly, I think it’s a ticking time bomb for the President of the Republic, because, if by misfortune he is re-elected, he will have to manage a large part of the political class of the old world, which is not not necessarily the best symbol of renewal. From now on, macronism goes from Elisabeth Guigou to Gérald Darmanin via Renaud Muselier. How not to turn away from politics voters who have made choices of right or left assumed in previous elections?
Precisely, do you fear a record abstention?
I think it will be massive in reaction to an election imposed on us. The whole process of Emmanuel Macron reminds me of these words of Philippe Séguin in 1995: “Circulate, there is nothing to see, the winner has already been designated, praised, proclaimed. In this election, there is really no enthusiasm. Emmanuel Macron is campaigning very softly and, basically, without imagination. Realize that there is a crisis in purchasing power, which is currently ravaging the purses of the French people, in connection with soaring fuel prices and the cost of electricity, and that its first measure is to announce the abolition of the television license fee. One would really be entitled to ask where this discrepancy comes from. Then, without excessive originality, the candidate proposes the retirement at 65 that we had already announced. He has no vision of the country. He talks to you about a pact but, as often with Emmanuel Macron, it’s dressing up as a communicator. The President of the Republic does not arouse enthusiasm, but willingly places himself in the position of self-proclaimed winner to be joined by opportunistic people in the greatest confusion, the greatest chaos. On the contrary, I find that Valérie Pécresse has a lot of courage in trying to talk about substance, solutions and ideas.
Valérie Pécresse explains that Emmanuel Macron’s balance sheet is his ball and chain, but hasn’t Nicolas Sarkozy’s silence become that of the candidate?
Valérie Pécresse is campaigning around a united team and many supporters. With regard to cannonballs, I maintain that it is on the side of Emmanuel Macron that we must turn: Sibeth Ndiaye, Agnès Buzyn or Alain Griset among others… With the cases that have splashed his relatives or himself, we could fill two or three Vermot Almanacs. On the question of support, rallies and departures, why do we not question the defections of certain Macronist heavyweights such as Gérard Collomb, or even Hugues Renson who recently explained that during Macron’s mandate, Parliament was only “a recording chamber for decisions made elsewhere”? As for Nicolas Sarkozy, it was the media that made him a subject. Chirac waited until March 21 to support him in 2007. And I don’t believe that de Gaulle ever publicly supported Pompidou. All this to say that there is no rule in the matter, that people are free and that the election depends more on the people than on the supporters.
In 2014, when she was chairing the session, you called Sandrine Mazetier “Madame President”, triggering a media storm and criticism from many deputies. Are you going to call Valérie Pécresse “Madame President of the Republic”?
What bothered me at the time was the underlying ideology, the desire to purge language, to deconstruct it. There is no trace of this ideology in the Republican candidate. Results ? I don’t care, and I don’t even think she cares. The subject is not the use of the word itself, but to prevent the ideology behind it from thriving, a gendered ideology, fundamentally Wokist and which aims solely to deconstruct society.