Nicolas Jutzet: «Valérie Pécresse has something of Hillary Clinton about her, only worse».»

Nicolas Jutzet, project manager at Institut Libéral and co-founder of the platform Liber-thé, is a liberal through and through, having read the works of Frédéric Bastiat, Benjamin Constant and Friedrich Hayek. This 27-year-old intellectual had already retired from political life last year. He had made a name for himself in the media, where he became a frequent contributor, by leading the French-speaking campaign for the «No Billag» initiative, calling for the abolition of the licence fee, and then, more recently, the first successful initiative of the Young Swiss Liberal-Radicals, aimed at linking the retirement age to life expectancy. I wanted to ask him what he thought of the French presidential campaign that has just ended. I covered the previous campaign with him, when he began his editorial career at Regard Libre and that his hope had a name: Macron. Since then, water has flowed under the bridge.

Le Regard Libre: What's your impression of the presidential campaign as it draws to a close?

Nicolas Jutzet: It was rather a painful pseudo-campaign. First there was Covid, which paradoxically suited the president because it prevented him from having to talk about other subjects. Then there was the war in Ukraine, which - quite rightly, of course - replaced most of the issues. The campaign never really took off. As a result, the quality of candidates declines with each election, but we haven't really found a solution to remedy the situation. The whole dynamic of redistribution of political power in France, with the decomposition of traditional parties, leads to mediocrity. Macron has openly decided to play on the fact that the election will be a duel between him and the extremes. To do so is to dynamite the forces that can be constructive, intellectually well-formed and capable of nuance.

What do you mean by that?

On the left, we have a candidate who is complacent with political Islam, with conspiracy tendencies, and who has totally siphoned off the rest: Mélenchon. And on the far right, we have someone even more nationalistic than Marine Le Pen, who has monopolized the media spotlight: Zemmour. Before Macron, there were forces that, if not perfect, were present on the ground: the Socialists on the left, the Republicans (ex-UMP) on the right. Macron has replaced these local relays with a kind of false party, with godillot deputies with no roots. He has encouraged the rise of forces that have exactly the same problem: France insoumise, Rassemblement national and Reconquête (Zemmour's movement) have no presence in the communes and regions.

Apart from these aspects, do you think Macron is a liberal?

Unfortunately, hope turned to disappointment. Macron has attacked individual freedoms and spent public money to an extent never achieved by the presidents who preceded him. Admittedly, he has faced various crises during his term of office: the «gilets jaunes», Covid, the war in Ukraine... But on principle, even his friend François Sureau, recently elected to the Académie française, believes that his five-year term has been a horror for freedom. Freedom was already suffocating in France before him, but with him it's dead, as a value.

The world still had to deal with a pandemic!

Yes, but that doesn't excuse everything: France has been much more liberal than Switzerland, for example. What struck me, to take a specific case, was that you needed a circular to leave your house. France was probably the most paternalistic democratic state in the world during this pandemic. Another example, not related to Covid this time, is the way the state cracked down on the «gilets jaunes» during the protests. What sums up Macron is that he is strong with the weak and weak with the strong. The public perceives him as contemptuous, simply because he is, and during the «gilets jaunes» crisis it really showed.

Michel Onfray, in a recent interview, This man has a peculiar narcissism: he is classic, he is a man of the world, he is a man of the world, he is a man of the world.’is the one from whom’loves, but it is also doubled by’a rage against anyone who doesn't subscribe to his narcissism. He s’loves, but he’doesn't like’the’don't like.»

I totally agree with him on this point. Macron gives the impression that he has an answer for everything, that he seduces even when he's asleep. He has succeeded in being more credible in his role as president than his predecessors, by not being constantly in the media's little phrases, but there is a downside. Economist Jean-Marc Daniel has explained that every time Macron faces a problem, he spends billions. He responds to every problem by increasing the presence of the state. Before becoming president, Macron said that France «is Cuba without the sun»; he has become the archetype of what he denounced.

Macron, in fact, is the most Jacobin of the presidents of the Fifth Republic.^th Republic, for better or for worse.

Mostly for the worse. He's a centralizing hyper-president who has no safety valve between himself and the population, which is very dangerous. When violence explodes, there's no mediator to channel it. Macron has spoken very little to journalists, preferring to go through his own communication, and has methodically destroyed the intermediary bodies. As for the unions, he has also done so because they were not representative, living historically on subsidies rather than membership fees. Basically, Macron has unveiled a deception, a secret that everyone suspected. But the problem is that he hasn't replaced these intermediary bodies with something more constructive, but with violent verticality.

You're forgetting the Citizens' Climate Convention. (Laughter)

This political gadget... Let him build nuclear power plants instead of conventions!

Isn't the problem with Macron that he wants to please everyone??

Yes, it's his famous «at the same time» side. We've seen over the past five years that he also has great difficulty surrounding himself with brilliant people, preferring to surround himself with technocrats of no stature. And he doesn't seem to feel at ease when it comes to making decisions, hence his annoying tendency to spend.

Which candidate do you find most appealing?

When I fill in questionnaires online, I end up with Pécresse rather than Macron. She's probably a little more liberal economically, at least on paper. Socially, I tend to share Macron's positions. But it's not just the program, it's the person. With Pécresse, what's obvious is that everything is wrong. She's a bit like Hillary Clinton, only worse. I think if I had the right to vote, I'd abstain. This hyper-presidential system is on its last legs; to vote is to legitimize it.

Yann Moix said recently on France 2 that the big difference between Zemmour and Pécresse is that the former is exactly what he says.

That's a good summary. In the end, Zemmour probably collapsed because he assumed everything. I have infinitely more respect for an individual who «dies» for what he thinks, even if I disagree with him, than for someone who adapts his speech to the opinion of the moment.

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com