Talleyrand vs La Fayette

What stance should one adopt in a constantly changing world? Should one adapt to every piece of news, adjusting course with each new jolt? Or, on the contrary, should one set a firm direction and stick to it at the risk of being mistaken?

The question is especially acute for a political leader. Take AI policy - should strict bans on the automation of certain professions be announced today or should one wait to assess any economic impact first? Or take parliamentary politics - should one draw an absolute red line against any form of cooperation with opposing parties, or seek pragmatic rapprochement to secure a parliamentary majority? In both cases, adaptability can look like a lack of vision; but deciding too early can be a strategic handicap.

Our era is marked by technological and political upheavals, so allow me to invoke two prominent figures from the French Revolution to make a point.

On the one hand, let's look at Talleyrand — the man who worked for six successive political regimes between the Ancien Régime and the July Monarchy, securing, under each sovereign, a position of influence. His talent was to not only survive political changes but to make himself indispensable through a rare ability to sense before others where the prevailing wind was blowing.

On the other hand, let's look at La Fayette — hero of two worlds, eternal defender of republican values and human rights, the man who was incapable of renouncing his principles even when it meant exile under both Napoleon and the Restoration.

Both, in their own way, succeeded in shaping the course of History. Talleyrand did it by renouncing former allies and striking agreements with former enemies, betraying at times the clergy, at times a King, at times an Emperor. La Fayette did it by keeping his eyes fixed on a single idea — the principles of 1789 — even if it meant paying the price.

La Fayette remains, even today, the more popular, almost mythologized figure. But one should not forget there was luck in backing an idea that proved victorious in the long run. That democracy would win was not written in advance in the 1780s, his gamble was risky.

How much confidence can we place today in any one trend? If liberty was the winning idea of the nineteenth century, which principle is most likely to emerge victorious from the twenty-first? Can a vision still survive the upheavals of a world in which technological ruptures outpace political rhythms, and in which certainties fracture faster than they are built? Is Talleyrand the model to follow when no one knows which idea will triumph tomorrow?