It is a trick word in political debate.
It could have a positive meaning: what is at the root is radical, what remains, what resists.
In fact, its connotation is negative;
and even insulting.
Anyone who is sectarian, intolerant, extremist, dangerous is radical.
The label functions as a discriminator, not as an identifier.
Its use is therefore itself trapped;
and biased.
To discover
Presidential 2022: where are the candidates in the polls?
Read also
Sandrine Rousseau: the bet largely won by radicalism
Talking about the “radicalism” of Sandrine Rousseau and Éric Zemmour - because they are the ones targeted - is therefore a way of postulating their dangerousness and, consequently, of seeking to send them beyond the limits of the agreed debate, even authorized.
The process is not new.
It has often been shown to be counterproductive.
We remember the "circle of reason" often associated with Alain Minc - who actually spoke more finely of
"circle of the real and the possible"
, opposing Édouard Balladur and Jacques Chirac as we distinguish between seriousness and demagoguery.
Chirac won.
More recently there was
This article is for subscribers only.
You have 67% left to discover.
To cultivate your freedom is to cultivate your curiosity.
Subscription without obligation
1 € THE FIRST MONTH
Already subscribed?
Log in
