Having received some pretty stiff criticism, even from his own side, for a previous column giving a half-throated defense of LePen, Ross Douthat doubles down in today’s NYT, arguing that Corbyn is almost as appalling, but no one is freaking out about him. The implicit suggestion is that the lack of concern about Corbyn is the product of hypocrisy, left-wing media bias, or both.
I don’t agree. Here are the differences between the two:
1. LePen was in a position to do more damage than Corbyn. A LePen victory could well have destroyed the EU. Corbyn couldn’t do that; the UK is already leaving.
2. Regardless of the polls, there was more uncertainty about a LePen victory. Given the surprises of Brexit and Trump, could anyone really be sure that the French polls were correct? Would the disgruntled far left abstain, vote for Macron, or cast an anti-establishment vote for LePen? There were reasons to be concerned. The British election, on the other hand, is far more “normal” and predictable.
3. A Prime Minister Corbyn would be subject to far more constraints than a President LePen. Even without much support in the National Assembly, LePen would have had more freedom to operate on her own than Corbyn, who has no hope of winning an absolute majority, and who has very limited support within his parliamentary party.