When the choice offered to us seems unacceptable, it is perhaps necessary to reformulate how the choice arises.
If the slogan #niMacronNiLePen has every reason to exist as a cry from the heart, and if my sympathy goes naturally to the occupants of the Sorbonne, I think that this time abstention is a luxury that we cannot can no longer afford.
The far right has never been closer to power, and Macron is so hated in the country that Le Pen has every chance of gaining power. What difference does it make since Macron has been digging into Le Pen's program and language elements for 5 years? Well, the difference, precisely, is that for this same reason, Le Pen will have to go much further to satisfy his base. It is the general law of this country; the more the parties of the right or of the left borrow from the extreme right, the more the latter must necessarily sink into radicality in order to stand out.
I will not vote to choose who should govern the country, and in this I can recognize myself in the slogan Ni Le Pen Ni Macron, but I will vote to choose the enemy that we will have to fight for the next five years. It's the only thing in question in the second round: to choose the enemy, because in any case it will be necessary to fight.
So, since each of us knows how difficult it is to confront Macron and his authoritarian drift, do we really want to add to ourselves the additional difficulty of confronting Le Pen and the neo-Nazi mafia that surrounds him? Is the only small fleeting pleasure of seeing Macron being beaten worth propelling the shaved heads surrounding Le Pen to the posts of ministers, prefects, directors of administration, presidents of institutions, ambassadors, etc? Is it worth offering Putin a victory in the heart of Europe and the social movement its worst defeat?
In wanting to respond to Macron's arrogance, wouldn't we be a little too arrogant ourselves?