Three faulty assumptions in the coverage of Le Pen and the French campaign

Much of the coverage of the upcoming runoff election in France has focused on Marine Le Pen, "populism," and what they could mean for France and Europe. Vox, one of the outlets we analyzed today,had a lot to sayon the subject:

“Many believe Macron’s expected victory indicates that the populist wave that seemed to be sweeping the West after Brexit and Trump’s election has crested. But while a Macron win over Le Pen would certainly be good news for France and Europe, it would be premature at best to interpret such a victory as the beginning of the end for populism in France or the West.”

Is what Vox is saying true? Should we take it as fact? These are some of the assumptions that underpin the excerpt:

Let’s explore these assumptions one by one.

There is an objective measure of “populism” that we can clearly establish

According to Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia,populismis a political doctrine that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite and that seeks to resolve this. As its use has become widespread, the label has been applied to leaders of many political leanings--from libertarians to pacifists, left wing to right wing. So, calling candidates “populists” does not seem to clearly represent their stance or platform.

Marine Le Pen is populist

Is Le Pen a “populist," then? Does the term accurately describe her political platform? How much “populism” do you need to do to be called a populist? Again, the term itself is vague, so it’s difficult to tell.

Populism is bad and should be stopped

Vox mostly implies populism is bad and that defeating it would be positive, but it doesn’t explain why. For example, it says, “A Macron victory would represent an important defeat for populism.” Important why? It doesn’t say. And then there’s, “Permanently defeating populism in both its right- and left-wing reforms will require more than struggling to win election after election…” What’s so bad about it that it must be “permanently defeated”? Again, Vox doesn’t say. It presents these ideas as fact, not owning that they are opinions based on a standard that is subjective or at best unclear.

So is populism inherently bad? It probably isn’t for Le Pen supporters, for those who voted for the U.K. to leave the European Union, or those who supported Donald Trump in the last U.S. election. But then again, we’re assuming these are indeed examples of populism, but neither we nor Vox have shown how.

If Le Pen were elected, some of her proposed policies might have detrimental effects for France or Europe. But Vox doesn’t tell us what they are. When news outlets do tell us, they often do so with bias and spin. It would be more conducive to critical thinking to objectively describe the specific, measureable policy items she favors, and then people could evaluate their merits or downsides.

If we get caught up in an argument about which political ideology is better or worse—which is the same as bickering over whether a hammer is better than a screwdriver—we’re generalizing and we miss the point. Populism, democracy, communism—these things are labels that describe forms of government, which are tools. What if the media educated us to use them effectively?