The Lafayette Campaign: a Tale of Deception and Elections (Frank Adversego Thrillers Book 2)

by Updegrove, Andrew

  Conventionally, the debate upon which she focused centered on whether the economic benefits of unbridled capitalism outweighed the positive social impacts of left-leaning policies. To Falconet, this was a question that was not even ripe for discussion. She held that the true enquiry should be into which political policies naturally default to economic success, and which to failure. Over a period of decades, she asked, would a democratic system be likely to achieve better results under policies favoring unrestricted capitalism, or ones which assigned a higher priority to achievement of social goals?

  In her view, history amply demonstrated that regardless of political theory, the sheer inertia of human nature would inevitably lead to the same results. Ideology and revolutionary zeal might fuel a different outcome for a time, but ultimately people would return to acting in their own self-interest, regardless of what the rules and regulations might say. Those laws that were most consistent with self-interest would therefore be more likely to be observed, and those that were not would be avoided, thwarted, or periodically repealed, inevitably leading to a significant loss in economic efficiency.

  She pointed to the almost universal failure of communist economies as examples. Even the few that remained, China, and even Cuba, were sliding inexorably towards capitalism.

  Once one accepted this conclusion (as she argued one must), the question became how one could construct a political system that harnessed human nature to work naturally towards a better and more balanced result. Such a system would lead to greater social and economic stability, which in turn should lead to higher and more sustained productivity over time. This was where she believed lay the best opportunities for productive change.

  It was easy to state such a theory, but hard to prove. She had therefore decided to investigate a single, more testable, dynamic in the relationship between governments and economic decisions. Specifically, she and her assistants had long sought to prove that democratic governments with short election cycles, regardless of whether they leaned left or right, would make poorer, and even disastrous, economic decisions, in comparison to those that had longer cycles. She reasoned that this should be true, because politicians would rarely change direction when economies seemed strong, but would usually alter course when economies were failing – whether it made real sense to do so in either case.

  This should flow naturally from the fact that politicians facing imminent reelection contests would rarely be brave enough to change direction when all seemed well – even if policy makers believed that the good times were about to end. To do otherwise would risk being assigned the blame when the anticipated bad times indeed came about. On the other hand, a government that failed to act during bad times – even if a change in direction could only make things worse – could expect to fail miserably in the next election.

  The solution, Falconet argued, was to move economic authority from officials in elected positions to those with long-term appointed ones, thereby rendering the policy makers as immune as possible to the temptation of making self-interested decisions. Her research therefore also focused on the relative success or failure over time of decision making by elected vs. appointed officials.

  There was nothing particularly daring about Falconet’s theories as such, so long as they were limited to drawing conclusions from verifiable data. Once one passed from the observation of the past to making recommendations for the future, however, the potential for invoking an immune response among those pledging allegiance to political correctness became clear. Her critics found her suggestion that vital decision making powers should be removed from regularly elected officials to be particularly problematic. Wasn’t that a step towards fascism?

  That was enough to invoke the scorn of Pissante, but she suspected there was another reason why he had subjected her to unusually aggressive attacks.

  That reason was as clear as her own picture on the front of the magazine she had put down without reading. It was hardly the first interview that she had given, but the cover photo of herself was a first. A few years ago, she had, quite by accident, acquired a popular following outside of Sciences Po. She picked up the magazine to study its cover. Doubtless it did not help that she was tall and striking, while Pissante was professorially non-descript and fusty. He was unknown outside of academic circles, and it clearly rankled him that she should have the innate ability to present herself in both an authoritative as well as an engaging manner, using real-world terms that anyone could understand.

  That should not have mattered. At Sciences Po, as at most other universities, a professor was (sadly) judged on the volume and placement of her journal articles rather than on her skills as a lecturer. But one day, as she had told the magazine’s interviewer, a journalist from a leading newspaper seeking an intellectual French reaction to an upcoming American presidential election had been unable to connect with his usual academic source.

  By happenstance, it was Falconet that he turned to next. He found her to be unusually quotable, and also she photographed very well. The article that resulted reached a wide and receptive audience, and it was not long before other journalists were seeking her out. Within a year, Falconet had become a popular commentator and a regular guest on a weekly television review of the news. That had not sat at all well with Pissante, who began referring to her as a mere talking head with questionable analytical abilities.

  He also disapproved of the other ways in which she departed from the academic norm. Unlike most French professors, she was accessible to students and enjoyed debating with them both inside and outside of class. Soon, something of a salon developed around her, made up of her most talented students, mostly female. Unlike her professorial peers, they were open to new ideas, and also interested in having an impact on the world around them. These exchanges provided her with a refreshing opportunity to propose and debate hypothetical policies based upon her theories, something she would never do now in a professorial discussion. It also provided a pool of talented graduate students she could engage as research assistants. Many of these students remained part of her salon after they graduated, meeting to discuss the events of the day in brasseries or sitting on couches and chairs in front of the small marble fireplace in her apartment.

  She poured herself another cup of tea, and picked up that day’s Le Monde from the coffee table. As she leafed through it, she was confronted by the toothful smile of one of the American presidential candidates, a Texas governor who was taking a few days off from campaigning to engage in a “fact finding” trip abroad to burnish his non-existent foreign policy credentials.

  She sniffed. Her students would certainly have something to say about that. They had been particularly energized by the aggressive approach of the last American president, the one who had expected all American allies to simply fall in line behind U.S. policies, regardless of whether they agreed with them, or what the consequences to their own national interests might be.

  When that president ran for reelection, Falconet asked her salon whether they thought her theories might be applicable to this problem. Was there a way that the democratic process could be restructured in order to guide the electorate to choose more enlightened decision makers than it would otherwise? Her question became a matter of earnest and ongoing discussion as the election approached, especially since the perennially testy relations between the U.S. and France was undergoing one of its periodic exacerbations. Politicians, pundits, and even comedians on both sides of the water found it expedient to take potshots at the other nation to shore up their own domestic popularity. The phrase “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” failed to elicit the same good-humored response in France as it did in the U.S.

  One night, a member of her salon observed that Americans clearly were not to be trusted picking its own leaders. Why not do it for them, another offered, to general laughter? There was agreement that such intervention was not only justified, but that French tacticians could
scarcely do worse than American voters.

  The concept had immediate appeal, and also presented an enjoyable puzzle – how could such a scheme be put into action? Should the United Nations be enlisted, or should a covert operation be launched? A raucous debate ensued.

  Falconet found the discussion unrealistic but also beguiling. What if her theories could be put to a real-world test? But the idea was of course absurd.

  She realized that she had been musing for some time; the room had now become quite dark, dark enough that even her grandmother would at last have permitted her to turn on a light. Falconet picked up her phone to check the time – it was almost 6:00 PM. She also saw that she had email. Should she attend to it now, or leave it for the morning?

  She had given up her land line years before, and had left the ringer on her mobile phone off since Friday, forcing herself for once to ignore her professional life for an entire weekend. But there must be a limit to such self-indulgence. She did have friends and family. She should check.

  Scanning the list of unopened mail, she was surprised to see one from Pissante, evidently sent not long before. That was highly unusual, as he was famously computer illiterate. Falconet doubted he even knew how to type – sending letters and email was what assistants were for. The subject line read, “For your immediate attention.” Curious, she opened it.

  In fact, there was no message at all. Merely an attachment, which she tapped to open. When it did, she had to squint to read the brief text that lay between the date and the closing. It read:

  My Dear Colleague,

  It is of course with deep regret that I find that I must place you on paid leave, effective immediately. I am sure that you will appreciate that I am left with no alternative, given the gravity and delicacy of the current situation. An appropriate committee will decide, in due course, if and when it may be appropriate for you to resume your duties.

  Instinctively, she made that small, explosive sound (Puh!) that only the French can properly execute.

  Relieved of her duties! What nonsense! She had tenure, and this was, after all, France! The little man must be insane to even imagine that he could pull off such a stunt, regardless of the offense, whatever it might be, that he imagined to exist.

  But what could that offence be? She looked again at her phone, and saw that she had received a long list of emails, some from journalists she knew, but others from reporters whose names she only recognized. She opened several, but each merely requested the opportunity to schedule an interview. What world event could have occurred that suddenly placed her opinions in such urgent and broad demand?

  Puzzled, she reached for her television remote, and called up a news program dedicated to political news and analysis that her system had recorded earlier in the day. Almost immediately the image of the leader of the ultra-right wing party France First! appeared on a screen behind the two commentators. As usual, she was gesticulating vigorously in front of a highly responsive crowd.

  Falconet gathered from the discussion that followed that the party, which had heretofore defined itself almost entirely by what it was emphatically against (immigrants, socialism, unions, gays, American cheese, and so on) had issued a manifesto. It described the new, anti-democratic policies that it intended to pursue at the local, regional and national level.

  And then the commentator said this:

  But is there anything that is so very new in this manifesto?

  Ah, indeed, this time there is. It seems that the leaders of France First! are seeking to acquire greater legitimacy by claiming that their xenophobic positions are based upon a respectable theoretical base.

  Such as?

  As it happens, they have discovered the work of an author whose name has popular as well as academic familiarity – Simone Falconet.

  The same Simone Falconet that we have had as a guest in the past?

  The very same. According to France First! her research proves that the average citizen cannot be trusted to elect policy makers. Instead, the ruling party should be able to choose long-term appointees to make decisions that cannot be second-guessed by the legislature – or even the courts. They appear to have claimed her as their own Joan of Arc.

  Horrified, she turned off the television. How could her research have been so grossly misrepresented? Once again, she sat in darkness. But her sudden invisibility was only a mocking illusion. She had spent enough time with the press to know that there would be no way, and nowhere, to hide.

  * * *

  32

  Ma Chère Professeur

  Simone Falconet continued to receive (and ignore) calls from reporters. She sent the same polite, written response to each journalist, stating that while she was not providing interviews or commentary at this time, it should be clearly understood that the France First! party was misrepresenting the results of her research, as well as her own interpretation of the data.

  Her email was harder to ignore. Although she had been placed on leave, she still needed to keep in touch with her colleagues at Sciences Po and elsewhere regarding papers she had submitted to journals for consideration as well as others she had agreed to peer-review. Among the day’s email she was pleased to find one that read as follows:

  Professor Falconet,

  I find that I need to make some decisions and would be very grateful if I could have your advice. Would it be possible for me to call you? Also, do you Skype?

  Regards,

  Josette

  Falconet was delighted. Josette had been one of her most intelligent students, and a much-valued research assistant as well. She responded yes to both questions, and suggested a time.

  * * *

  Falconet greeted Josette warmly when they connected. It had been more than two years since the younger woman had received her graduate degree, and the two had rarely been in touch since then. Josette asked many questions regarding her former professor’s current research, listening attentively to her answers. Falconet welcomed the distraction from her current troubles, and warmed to the topic.

  Still, she knew that this was not the reason that Josette had reached out to her. “But you cannot be so interested any more in my dry research. You are young and out in the world. Where now do you live? And what is it that I can help you with?”

  Josette’s face grew larger as she leaned closer to her laptop and her voice dropped. “Do you remember how distressed we were a few years ago with the American election?”

  “Of course. I confess I was a bit amused. Yes, everything you and your friends said was true. But as you grow older, perhaps, you grow more resigned to the nonsense of politics. And we have elected our own share of imbeciles, to be sure.”

  Josette’s eyebrows rose. “But Professor! What about your research and your theories? What use are they unless they are applied?”

  “Well, of course I believe that my theories are valid. But academics are observers, not practitioners. We analyze the past, and hope that perhaps we help the world see itself more clearly. If our research can be applied to make a better future, then of course, we are happy. But that is for others to decide and do.”

  Josette said nothing, leaving Falconet at a loss. “But I am confused by your question. What exactly is it that I can help you with?”

  “Professor, you do remember the very serious discussions we had, trying to figure out how the rest of the world could impress upon the Americans how much the decisions their presidents make affect us, and if that failed, how we might take action to lead the American voters to make more responsible decisions? Yes?”

  “Yes, yes, I do recall. But what of it? Those were simply theoretical exercises.”

  Josette pressed her lips together. “Perhaps to you. But we have acted on those plans.”

  “What? You cannot be serious? Which plans? What have you done?”

 
Josette began speaking very rapidly, her face now almost filling the laptop screen. She did not go into all of the details, but she described how, with the help of some IT savvy friends, they had executed their plan; how she feared that the back door they had built into the pollsters’ systems was now being exploited by someone else to affect the primaries; and how she believed that someone, presumably the same individual or group, had found a way to manipulate the voting returns as well.

  “So, Professor, my question is this: do you know of anyone who could assist me in uncovering the person who has taken control of the pollsters’ systems? Perhaps a French espionage agency? Do you know anyone who would be able to approach such a department?”

  Early in Josette’s monologue, Falconet had stood up and begun pacing back and forth in her small sitting room. When at last her former student quit speaking, she turned towards her own computer and spoke from a distance, her hands splayed open in disbelief.

  “But how could you? How could you even devise such a scheme?”

  “How can you say ‘how could we?’ We did it in your sitting room! You were there!”

  “Yes, yes, of course I was. But that was just a discussion – we were playing little mind games – it is how we amuse ourselves in universities. But in the social sciences we never actually do anything – we just do research and write papers that nobody reads!”

  Josette’s face was flushed. She could barely see the face of her former professor in the shadows of her apartment. “Perhaps for you, but not for us! Have you forgotten? We were in Paris, and we are French! When a government runs amok, we do not sit back and cluck our tongues! We challenge whatever has become the new ancien regime when it begins to abuse the people. It was not so long before you went to university that students barricaded the streets of Paris and held off the government for days.”