Many people, including me, are nostalgic of the time of the decades following the Second World war. This time was generally a period of prosperity with overall more honest and of a better level politicians. They weren’t perfect and, for instance, de Gaulle could be a cold hearted “chess player”, but he followed principles behind and was pursuing idealistic goals, besides really engaging for the success of France in its inside policy and internationally. To the same extend Mendès France was a brilliant minister very young, was part of the Popular Front government, before being a very engaged resistant in the Second World war and participated to the economic international institutions following the war. He was seen as an example of honesty and competence ; moreover he didn’t accept to be a major player of the Vth Republic compliant to his principles.
This period looks to illustrate the theory of Plato who distinguished the politicians who only fight for power and those who are ambitious for themselves but also idealistic and willing to make their country succeed. In my opinion ambition is not necessarily a bad thing if there are principles aside. But for 1981 and the advent to power of Mitterrand, France shifted to a more “cynical” area : Mitterrand was at the same time the last President who knew the Second World war and the one who went against the legacy of de Gaulle. It is from this period, for instance, the amount of debt exploded.
In my opinion we live today the return of a society dominated by the “oppressive” part of bourgeoisie. In History bourgeoisie has always been divided, with different forms opposed between themselves. The rise of modern capitalism and its “mobiliary economy”, relying on small businesses, ports, cities and the first financial markets compared to the “non mobiliary economy” led by feudalism and aristocracy, created the advent of the “old bourgeoisie”, which was quite austere in its way of living and quite attached to education and culture, without being against money. In my opinion it is a very beautiful kind of bourgeoisie, which is not perfect but is having in majority a positive impact ; its power shouldn’t be underestimated as well; it was the leading kind of bourgeoisie in the XVIIIth century, creating figures like Mirabeau. Another kind of bourgeoisie is more oppressive, more reliant on money and seeking more domination, it was the majoritarian kind of bourgeoisie in the XIXth century, under regimes like Charles X, Louis Philippe or Napoleon III. Like the Roman civilization, the bourgeoisie has its kind of Roman Republic aspect with the old bourgeoisie and the decadent and oppressive bourgeoisie with the Roman Empire aspect. In my opinion de Gaulle and Mendès France were part of the old bourgeoisie system, which had bad sides but mainly more positive than today ; Macron, on the other side, represents today more the leading bourgeoisie in the XIXth century, which was not totalitarian but oppressive.
I don’t totally believe in the irreductible fight between classes, even if there are important realities to take into account. In my opinion the socialist view is fairer than the communist one : traditionally the socialist want to make pay more taxes to the privileged classes and make it contribute more to the common good, without making the privileged “parias” of the system like the communists. In my opinion, if the privileged people have to be aware of their luck, they don’t have to apologize to be privileged as well. It is the reason why many privileged people who want to contribute to socialist ideals have to comply to more demanding “standards” like reformism, which requires more hard work and is more “centrist” than other socialist movements ; but at the same time, if they respond to these standards, they can be part of socialist engagements, which looks quite fair at the end of the course. For instance Mendès France was born in the bourgeoisie but won its legitimacy in socialist engagements with the profile he created for himself.
It is the reason why, in my opinion, referring to the period led by de Gaulle and Mendès France, which was not so remote, can bring positive things today. The level of debates was at this time much better than today and there was less corruption in general, even if there aware of the tragic nature of History (human nature cannot be trusted easily) and were able to act consequently. De Gaulle thought that the only worthy ambition was for mankind, a principle that would have shared Mendès France, even if there was differences between them. These ideas can be useful in the world of today if they can be adapted to the context and the challenges of today.
The observer 