Will France be all right in the center?

After the French presidential election, a look at our vocabulary for describing political parties.

Philippe Wojazer/Reuters
French President Emmanuel Macron attends a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France on May 21, 2017.

The country where the terms “left” and “right” were first applied to the political spectrum has opted overwhelmingly for the center. Emmanuel Macron has been elected the youngest president in the history of the Fifth Republic

And he’s done it without a real political party behind him – just a sort of pop-up centrist movement called En Marche!

It seems to take the idea of “political movement” quite literally. Its name has been variously rendered in English as “Onward,” “On the Move,” or “Let’s Move!” No, wait: “Let’s Move!” was Michelle Obama’s fitness initiative. Pardonnez-moi.

As Mr. Macron and his team scramble to field a full slate of candidates for June’s parliamentary elections, this is a moment to consider our terminology for mapping the political landscape.

The terms “left” and “right” were first applied to politics during the French Revolution of 1789. In the National Assembly, supporters of the king sat on the right of the president of the assembly; supporters of the revolution, on his left.

Do we need new terminology to map the political landscape? And do we need to locate politicians on more than one axis? Maybe so.

Conservatives prefer limited government to give free markets room to work and keep taxes down. Liberals accept a bigger role for government to provide services the free market doesn’t. We can measure a country’s relative “rightness” or “leftness” by the government share of its gross domestic product.

Figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show the United States spent 37.7 percent of its GDP on government in 2015. For Germany, the number was 44.0 percent. France spent 57.0 percent. Any country with such a big government sector must be under stress, some may say. Coincidentally, though, Finland, a country widely admired for its competitive economy, spent exactly the same proportion as France.

No wonder commentator David Brooks has called the “old size-of-government question ... increasingly archaic and obsolete.” He has argued, “In country after country the main battle lines of debate are evolving toward the open/closed framework.” He also makes the case for an “individual/social” axis, with a scale running between rugged individualism and deregulation on one side to a stronger social safety net on the other.

And isn’t there room for an authoritarian/libertarian axis, too? Where do we map the cultural issues that drive so many votes? We speak today of the White House and both chambers of Congress as being under Republican control. But whatever the current president’s failings, ideologically inflexible he is not.

When President Trump told visiting Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, “You have better health care than we do,” was he admitting a secret preference for a single-payer system, aka “socialized medicine”? Some observers thought so. 

In France on May 7, the center did hold. But going forward, the simple right-left political scale may not.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.