Cecile Alduy, born in 1974 in Boulogne-Billancourt, is a respected analyst of far-right discourse. An American literature and civilization professor at Stanford University, she has published on the rhetoric of the French right, including work published in February focusing on Zemmour. Her examination sheds light on the language used by the xenophobic and ultra-nationalist polemicist who dominated much of his first-round campaign. In 2015 she also analyzed Marine Le Pen’s communications and strategic approach, highlighting how demonization and public perception influence political trajectories.
The leaders of the Reconquista and the National Rally (RN) embody two currents within the same far-right spectrum in these elections. Zemmour attracted extensive media attention for months with his unrestrained discursive style, while Le Pen initially drew less notice and is now viewed by a growing share of voters as more moderate. Polls place Le Pen in second position on Sunday with a potential to prevail in a runoff against Emmanuel Macron, though such projections should be treated cautiously. Zemmour, by contrast, falls to around fourth place.
Questions about why the RN leader stopped frightening many voters and how Zemmour contributed to this shift loom large in the presidential debate. Alduy is seen by many as a leading authority on these dynamics, a point underscored by her connection to Perpignan’s political lineage through her father, former mayor Jean-Paul Alduy.
How does Zemmour’s aggressive rhetoric reflect broader anxieties in French society?
The rhetoric frequently employs warlike language. Conflict, struggle, death, and domination surface repeatedly in his discourse. This framing suggests a worldview in which relations are defined by a winner-takes-all dynamic. Such a vocabulary can foster an impression of civil conflict within the country and contribute to a climate of unease.
Is the discourse also minimizing racism?
The argument often reiterates the existence of races and invites a racialized view of society. In Zemmour’s framework, whiteness and origin become primary identifiers, with terms like freedom from outsiders appearing in discussions about immigration and national identity. The result is a framework where individuals are assessed first by ancestry and skin color rather than by character or actions.
An ideology that stands in opposition to humanistic ideals and republican values.
Enlightenment principles and republican ideals emphasize dignity and freedom for each person to think independently. Zemmour’s approach is seen by many as anti-Republican, challenging these core commitments by elevating essentialist notions of belonging over individual autonomy.
A recurring element in Zemmour’s discourse is what commentators call an inversion of social norms. What does this involve?
The inversion involves reframing victims as agents and reversing the established order. Zemmour challenges remorse about historical events like colonization while portraying current dynamics as France being colonized anew by those from former colonies who are labeled as invaders. This dynamic also suggests that men are subordinated within a supposed female-dominated order, undermining progress toward equality for women and minorities.
With limited chances to reach a second round, how much electoral influence could Zemmour still exert?
His rhetoric appeals to a portion of the electorate that has long found resonance with Le Pen’s National Rally. As voters who previously favored older radical currents seek a modern political proposition, Zemmour’s message has gained a form of legitimacy among those seeking a shift away from past leadership while maintaining a strong nationalist stance.
How has Marine Le Pen’s rhetoric evolved since the previous presidential election?
Le Pen has worked to normalize her public image, adopting a republican and secular tone that contrasts with her father’s approach. She has sought a more accessible and relatable stance, while taking advantage of international attention to counteract accusations of extremism. By addressing concerns about Islam and immigration in a pragmatic way, she has aimed to present herself as a capable head of state capable of addressing day-to-day issues.
Do media narratives render Le Pen more mainstream and less confrontational?
The media strategy has leaned toward a more conventional political voice, with a focus on economic arguments alongside immigration concerns. The aim is to craft an image of steadiness and competence that resonates with a broad segment of voters. This shift includes presenting herself as a leader who can govern effectively rather than one who signals sharp ideological stances at every turn.
Was there a strategic move away from more radical positions such as exiting the euro?
Since 2017 Le Pen’s team has steered away from some of the most controversial proposals, such as leaving the euro or banning dual citizenship. The emphasis has been on practical governance and stabilizing economic policy, while some pledges from the past are kept in a more measured form as the party positions itself as a responsible alternative to the current government.
Is Zemmour’s push for a more aggressive stance still shaping public discourse?
Zemmour’s combative style helped frame Le Pen’s public image as calmer and more policy-focused by contrast. His rhetoric often appears intense and theoretical, sometimes disregarding everyday voter concerns. Nevertheless, Le Pen’s program remains rooted in strong national sovereignty and a firm stance on immigration, with practical policy components designed to appeal to a wide audience.
Despite a more moderate public profile, does Le Pen still champion a hardline nationalist program?
The RN’s program continues to emphasize national sovereignty and strict immigration norms. Critics argue that this approach risks creating social divisions and undermining constitutional principles in ways that echo past difficult periods. The dialogue surrounding these policies continues to shape the political landscape as the election unfolds.