Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/484/ No Justice in Politics ft. David Broder (Patreon)

Published:
2025-04-29 11:00:11
Imported:
2025-04
Tags:

Downloads

  • 484-ReviewApril-Broder.mp3

Some files exceed the archive size limit and weren't saved: 1 file. Please note these limits are in place to keep this site running long term, without costing a fortune. You can favorite the creator though, certain milestones increase the limit.

Content

On the charges against France's Marine Le Pen.

Alex and George discuss some main stories from the past month. After the death of Pope Francis, what's behind left-wing sympathy for the late Pope – and more widespread appreciation for Catholicism? Why do we want a progressive Pope, and would a reactionary one be better for us? Why is the US deporting people to Nayib Bukele's Salvadorian prisons, and what makes this so dystopian?

Then Alex calls up Jacobin's Europe editor David Broder to understand the charges against Marine Le Pen.

Is Marine Le Pen a victim of lawfare, or has she been hoist by her own petard?

What are the consequences for the Rassemblement National, and for French politics?

What has the European radical right's response been to Trump II so far?

And we respond to your questions and comments from the past month on:

Holding politicians to account on free speech

Listening to poetry

Redistribution as the obvious solution to the crisis

Clientelism and hyperpolitics

Files

Comments

Will

He's referencing having the touch of a rapist

Lee Jones

1) Laws are made by representatives of the people, so it is a double offence for an elected politician (or someone aspiring to become one) to violate the law. I think this can justify exclusion from elections depending on the severity of the offence (but see 2). For the severest *political* crimes (e.g. insurrection, as seen recently in Korea, or attempts to subvert elections) the exclusion should be long term and punishment extraordinarily harsh, because democracy itself is at risk. 2) Politicians (actual or aspiring) who commit crimes should be punished equally, regardless of claims of lawfare; failure to do so incentives criminality among politicians and deepens popular cynicism and anti-politics. So, too, however, does selective prosecution which is merely persecution. I was not persuaded by David that Le Pen was not being persecuted just because Fillon was also jailed. As I understand it, what the RN did in the European Parliament is widespread practice and yet I am unaware of other MEPs being prosecuted in France. Perhaps I am ignorant; this is an empirical question ultimately. 3) The issue of cynicism applies also to the free speech discussion. David explained that Le Pen will not lose votes over her corruption because the RN's "anti-corruption" is tied to a specific political agenda, i.e. anti-establishment politicians, anti-green, anti-welfare. Le Pen does not genuinely stand against corruption in general on principle but mobilises anti-corruption sentiment for specific ends. The same is surely true of JD Vance's hectoring of Europe on free speech: he means to promote free speech for the right, so he will not lose votes because his administration is cracking down on, say, pro-Palestinian activism on campuses. All this means that the politicians themselves are deeply cynical in their appeal to principle, and sadly so, too, are their supporters. That does not mean the principles do not matter. It does mean that we should be deeply sceptical when a contemporary politician invokes these principles, and not think that anyone is going to "hold them to account" for failing to live up to them. If anything, highlighting their hypocrisy only deepens popular cynicism.

Szilárd

leave the pope to potpourri (happy I could make this substantive contribution)

jkjkjkj

Beyond the specifics of Vance, my point more broadly is that the argument of hypocrisy over free speech (and Vance is without question a hypocrite) is at this point fully Schmittian. The left no longer believes in free speech and the right never did, so there’s nobody to convince over the issue and this is a built in assumption of politics in America nowadays and no amount of pointing out hypocrisy, whether to Vance or the audience, will change anybodies mind. This isn’t any different from the argument made earlier about hypocrisy over Le Pens embezzlement not affecting RN voters because they view all spending going to peole they don’t like as inherently corrupt. The point stands: Vance isn’t going to defend free speech and who claims he is defending or attacking free speech will be almost entirely partisan in nature, but nobody seems to really want to admit that on the pod because I suspect they agree with his political priors.