The New York Times, in its pre-election coverage this morning, informed us the victory of the first French President in memory who is not at least partially anti-American would mean very little. The French resist change, the Grey Lady said.
Was it projection, lack of imagination or fear that inspired the Times to proffer one of the hoariest clichés about our Gallic cousins? Probably some of each, but I would put the emphasis on the fear … because the biggest loser in the Sarkozy blowout is the media. The French media is far more monolithic in its political views than ours (and that’s saying something) and it was uniformly aligned against Sarkozy. The people, obviously, weren’t buying their message. Naturally, the Times would be alarmed.
What were they buying? Well, I’m not French, so I don’t know. And even if I were, I could only guess – just as I do about elections here that I vote in. But I suspect we are witnessing a sea change in Europe that began with election of Angela Merkel and is continuing into France. The Old Country, simply put, may be waking up to the defense of their invention – The Enlightenment – no matter what their Foucault-besotted chattering classes wish.
So what does that mean here? We live in a country where Bush’s favorable percentage hovers somewhere around Jimmy Carter’s and the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem to be riding high, heading off to Damascus to hobnob with the ophthalmologist. Maybe I need my eyes examined, but I suspect that kind of (moral) blindness is only temporary. When 2008 rolls around… and in some ways it already has… and the American public is called upon to make a judgment about the future of our civilization that pits a Rudy Giuliani or a Fred Thompson against a Hillary Clinton or a Barak Obama, the Times may have to be as dismissive of the results as they have been with the French.
On a more social note, American tourists will now be heading back to France. Brush up your French. Or as we used to say in simpler times, “Just tell your cab driver ‘Sank roo danoo’.” (assuming you want to go to Harry’s Bar. Is it still there?)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
38 Comments
1. Buddy Larsen:Charming post, Monsieur Simon. Je suis d’accord avec vos sentiments!
May 6, 2007 - 2:29 pm 2. amuro316:Good article, Mr. Simon. I think the French media (and the NYT) fear that Sarkozy will turn out to be the anti-Chirac, and they’ll lose one of their biggest non-American anti-Bush supporters out there. And I think they’re right to fear that outcome.
However, Sarkozy will focus on fixing France’s internal problems first and foremost. The most I expect we’ll see out of him in the short term is less of a diplomatic cold shoulder and easier path in dealing with foriegn relations.
Also, Bush’s approval raitings are low, but they’re actually higher than that of Congress’.
Fafhrd
May 6, 2007 - 3:06 pm 3. ricpic:It’s all the fault of those rambunctuous yutes! If the yutes had simply laid low before the election their natural socialist allies would have kept their hold on power. But the yutes were impatient. They wouldn’t listen to their Imams, who kept telling them that the international socialist infidels were easier prey than the frankly Frankish infidels. And so they went and done it, expressed their ecstatic hatred and rage pour La France. And now La France is roused. And the yutes won’t be so heureux no more.
May 6, 2007 - 3:11 pm 4. Buddy Larsen:The yutes dancing in the streets tonight are French–as in, really French. “French” French (if you get my ‘who’s your loyalty’ drift).
May 6, 2007 - 3:39 pm 5. heather:There is a very depressing (for the French, and anyone who loves and respects Western Civilization) article, at http://www.commentarymagazine.com, by Michel Gurfinkiel entitled, Can France be Saved? It is in the May 2007 issue.
France in the oldest nation state in Europe; it was the FIRST Roman Catholic country (Pope John Paul 11 called France, “Rome’s eldest daughter.”)
Well, it has given up its ‘nation’ to the Euro; it is no longer Catholic in any meaningful way; its family structure has disintegrated, and following upon that, demographic reality says French future belongs to North African Islamist immigration. Its public debt (when you include all the social security goodies) totals 130 per cent of GDP; and one economist warns that it may double over the next fifteen years. To quote Gurfienkel, “This is on the scale of the debt of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century.”
And the REAL power is something Gurfinkiel describes as an entrenched, elite bureaucracy… Gurfienkel says that France’s decline results not from this or that election policy, but rather, “the essential workings of the country’s political system ever since the inception of the Fifth Republic in 1958.”
As a side note, Trudeau was almost totally successful in ‘Frenchifying” Canada in the manner described by Gurfienkel: an extremely well educated elite, ensconced in our federal government bureaucracy was put in place to rule my country. Interesting, eh? Very fortunately, we have stronger provinces than France has departments, so we aren’t a total basket case, like the French.
May 6, 2007 - 4:41 pm 6. Buddy Larsen:Speaking of Canadians & Sarkozy, here he is (on the right, natch) as one of the Kids in the Hall.
May 6, 2007 - 5:09 pm 7. Terrye:I think the people of France wanted something new and perhaps they have become afraid for their childrens’ future. An awakening as it were.
As for Bush’s ratings, I think that Rasmussen had him at 40% yesterday. Gallup had him in the mid thirties. I frankly do not believe the Newsweek poll. Not just because I don’t believe that Bush’s numbers are down to Carter levels, but because I don’t believe that Edwards can beat Gulliani. I mean come on…..talk about an outlier. I think that sometimes these guys decide what they want the story to be and then they make the numbers happen to support the narrative. That poll had an error of margin of 7 to 8%. What kind of poll has such a margin of error?
Captains Quarters has a good post up on the Newsweek poll. It is like being in highschool and the press is trying to convince of who is cool and who is a loser. Don’t want to hang out with the loser now do we? At least in Sarkozy’s case the people were not buying it.
May 6, 2007 - 5:49 pm 8. Buddy Larsen:At least NewsWeek hasn’t incited any deadly riots in Islam lately. Ya gotta give ‘em that.
May 6, 2007 - 6:05 pm 9. Charlie (Colorado):Re: Harry’s Bar, it would appear so..
May 6, 2007 - 7:58 pm 10. markus:I think very few of the people eager to boycott France over the past few years for caring about French, rather than American interests in the Middle East, have any interest in traveling to France now that a President who might possibly be less anti-American has been elected.
Having spent time drinking and watching the results with a bunch of French expats yesterday, I’ll venture to say that this election was about one thing: making France more economically competitive. 53% of voters voted for a more robust French economy, even if that means greater social inequality and more hours on the job. Given all that France is facing right now, I might have voted the same way.
May 7, 2007 - 8:16 am 11. rjschwarz:I think it’s gonna take a larger victory margin for the President of France to have the political capital to change their economy.
I think it’s likely that he’ll try, and be villified by their press every step of the way in the process. France may be saved and at the same time the Right wing damaged.
On the other hand if the new President concentrates on the Muslim issue France might be saved even if the economy lurches and sputters along.
May 7, 2007 - 8:24 am 12. Buddy Larsen:“53% of voters voted for a more robust French economy” and “Given all that France is facing right now, I might have voted the same way”
Oh, NO, markus–perish the thought! It’s not as though economics has anything to do with quality of life, or things like “misery”, or anything.
May 7, 2007 - 8:59 am 13. Buddy Larsen:Now is a good time to connect the dots backwards, markus.
Why is France “facing all that” now?
Can it possibly have anything to do with a generation or two of socialism?
And if the big appeal of that socialism–that is, the womb-to-tomb security–had actually been produced (in any way but on paper) by that socialism, would Sarko today be anything higher than a postmaster somewhere in the suburbs?
May 7, 2007 - 9:07 am 14. markus:Buddy — on the contrary, a robust economy is vitally important. The more wealth there is, the easier it is to build political support for confiscating a portion of it in order to care for nonworkers, and to provide services that the free market does a poor job of providing (like high-quality health care and education for everyone). Also, if you’re stuck with millions of culturally alienated, low-skill residents, you better have a strong economy to keep them busy.
As in all things, moderation is a virtue.
May 7, 2007 - 9:10 am 15. Buddy Larsen:can’t argue–except keep in mind that when you subsidize something, you get more of it, and when you tax something, you get less of it.
May 7, 2007 - 9:23 am 16. Richard Nieporent:like high-quality health care and education for everyone
It is too bad that we are unable to provide such wonderful health care and schools as in the old Soviet Union and present day Cuba. This is just the usual canard by the socialists. If the free market does such a bad job of providing health care and education why are so many people coming to the US to attend our colleges and to use our health services?
May 7, 2007 - 11:32 am 17. Buddy Larsen:Another point worth considering, markus, re your “Also, if you’re stuck with millions of culturally alienated, low-skill residents, you better have a strong economy to keep them busy” is, what if government policy itself is adding to the numbers (not to mention the misery) of those millions?
Then isn’t trying to run a strong economy in order to care for them, sort of like standing on the brakes and the throttle at the same time?
What’s wrong with an economy that is continually integrating and empowering the (otherwise) alienated and low-skilled?
What burns conservatives is that we get blamed for hard-heartedness, when there is nothing so cynical nor cruel as keeping a captive cohort dependant on your largess, in trade for its reliable (reliably desperate) vote?
May 7, 2007 - 12:27 pm 18. Buddy Larsen:oops, that was a statement, not a question.
May 7, 2007 - 12:30 pm 19. Jamie Irons:Buddy,
I read the Gurfinkiel article last week and thought, wow, France is finished! And I actually felt some compassion for the French who, because of their interference before the Iraq invasion, I had come to hate (in spite of having spent four long years learning, and learning to love, their language).
But Sarko’s election, with an 85% voter turnout, makes me rethink my pessimism. I think this is the biggest and most telling event in the world since 2001. If the French can rethink their direction, anything can happen.
Too bad we’re about 30 years behind them on the learning curve, and seem poised to make all their mistakes (in our own American way).
;-(
Jamie Irons
May 7, 2007 - 1:23 pm 20. markus:Richard,
I said the US is doing a lousy job providing health care and education for all citizens. Of course we have good health care for those with good insurance, notwithstanding the high cost and unbelievable inefficiency of the entire system. Also, the model for a decent health care system is not Russia, Cuba, Canada or England. It’s France or Germany, two countries with a hybrid system.
Buddy,
May 7, 2007 - 1:38 pm 21. jdwill:If there is a government program that is adding to the misery of people, that is hurting more people than it helps, you won’t have any trouble getting me to vote to get rid of it. These days, I think progressives are a lot more willing to confront our orthodoxies and prejudices than today’s conservatives.
Jamie,
By this do you mean we are trending socialist? I would not have thought this. My take is that Western society in general (a dangerous generalization, I know) is trending conservative. I just don’t see us as behind Europe.
May 7, 2007 - 1:38 pm 22. Bostonian:Buddy,
If there is any point in arguing with committed Marxists, I do not know what it is.
May 7, 2007 - 1:43 pm 23. Jamie Irons:jdwill,
I hope you are right!
But it does seem to me that the direction of our American polity is toward a stronger and more all-pervasive nanny-statism.
But you have to realize that I write from the belly of the beast, the S.F. Bay area…
Jamie Irons
May 7, 2007 - 2:01 pm 24. Richard Nieporent:Also, the model for a decent health care system is not Russia, Cuba, Canada or England. It’s France or Germany, two countries with a hybrid system.
So, Markus you believe that it is the French health care system that we should emulate. Then how do you explain what happened during the heat wave in France in 2003?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
The death toll in France from August’s blistering heat wave has reached nearly 15,000, according to a government-commissioned report released Thursday.
The new estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly.
It appears that the French do not admire their own health care system as much as you do.
May 7, 2007 - 2:53 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:Bostonian–thanks for the reminder–tho markus IS less boilerplate than he used to be. Maybe he’s catching the drift–?
Jamie–I agree, it’s huge–a world pivot-point, with ramifications for Russia & the less-friendly in PRC. The age cohort–that the young people are with Sarko, has got to be opening eyes. We may be seeing a turning point in the confidence of the jihad. Tours II, so to speak.
May 7, 2007 - 2:54 pm 26. markus:Richard — I heard about the French health care system from reading reviews of Jonathan Cohn’s new book, in which he praises it. I know him to be an intelligent writer, IMHf–kingO, from reading quite a few of his TNR articles, but not having read his book yet, I don’t know how his praise of their system squares with the problems that occured that month. Anyway, as any intellectually honest person would admit, the report you quote is an entirely appropriate description of America: “complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly.” Republicans, the (corporate) welfare party, have done their best to make the situation worse, as this NYTimes article on “Medicare Advantage” points out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/washington/07medicare.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1178633211-x3cb5+zK5EaSejpBBlq8fg
May 8, 2007 - 7:09 am 27. markus:Bostonian — A Marxist is someone who calls himself one. Nothing else. I’m not a Marxist, but why in the name of God would somebody be unwilling to argue with somebody who was? Christopher Hitchens was a Marxist, would you have written him off? (BTW, note how he keeps repeating these days that while he no longer calls himself a socialist, his fundamental views haven’t changed.)
What I’m trying to figure out is whether or not it is worth arguing with someone who THINKS I’m a Marxist, just after I posted a comment explaining why a vibrant capitalist economy is necessary.
May 8, 2007 - 7:21 am 28. Buddy Larsen:What “corporate welfare”? USA Corporations are taxed @ 35% (second highest in the industrialized world), and they employ the nation’s workforce @ “full employment” using the leftover cash.
May 8, 2007 - 8:28 am 29. Buddy Larsen:You don’t appreciate that 35% taxation, all that cash to socially redistribute, markus?
May 8, 2007 - 8:30 am 30. Steven Mitchell:“You don’t appreciate that 35% taxation, all that cash to socially redistribute, markus?”
He’s an unconscious marxist, Buddy, not a conscious one. Big difference!
May 8, 2007 - 8:40 am 31. markus:Buddy,
I knew there was something good about private profit, thanks for the reminder. I sure do appreciate that 35% tax rate on PROFIT MARGINS. I didn’t know it was that high, but I’ll take your word for it.
Remember, it is a two-way street. If not for those widgets known as productive workers, there wouldn’t be any profits at all.
May 8, 2007 - 8:44 am 32. Buddy Larsen:Why the CAPs on ‘profit margins’? Mitchell must be right–leftism is like pregnancy, you can’t be a little bit.
Besides, what else besides profits can ya tax? Can ya tax LOSSES?
Yes, it’s a two-way street, AKA cooperative effort. Capital & Labor, both have to make a profit to stay in business. Labor’s capital is work, and wages are the profit of that work. America’s story is of upward mobility, where young workers can amass (earn, borrow, create) capital and employ labor to reach productive goals in life. Profit is not just a greedy sneak-thru by that Monopoly character with the monocle and striped pants. It’s the measure of the value of the work.
Non-profit enterprises–such as governments–are notorious for the vast amount of valueless work they do (mixed in with some valuable) with the people’s valuable earnings. It’s the devaluation part that makes conservatives anti- excess taxation.
May 8, 2007 - 9:21 am 33. Buddy Larsen:And, pardon me, but how can you hold forth so boldly on economic morality, and not even know what the corporate tax rate is?
May 8, 2007 - 9:34 am 34. Buddy Larsen:Here, let me help you off the hook, I’ll answer it for ya:
“Well, I knew it was under 100%, so I knew it was too low.”
May 8, 2007 - 9:45 am 35. markus:Buddy –
I assume you’re being facetious with your “100%” comment. In fact, I’m as pro-capitalist as you. You and I also probably agree with Henry Ford that the more workers who can afford to buy a Model T, the better off Ford and other owners will be. We disagree on the level of necessary government regulation and oversight, and the extent of the phenomenon known as market failure.
I also bet that I get angrier at the public sector when it is incompetent than you do. Unlike you, I expect to get something from my tax dollars, and I expect that the public sector do a good job. That’s why the Iraqi civilian reconstruction funding fiasco makes me turn me beet red. The best way to get government programs to fail is to put political appointees who do not believe in the idea of good government in charge of them.
May 8, 2007 - 9:59 am 36. Buddy Larsen:Okay–but re “market failure”, you should look at the phenom in light of the effect of policy– vs what would likely occur from the same circumstances given an unfettered ‘invisible hand’.
May 8, 2007 - 10:24 am 37. markus:I’ve just started arguing with real live Marxists over on Marc Cooper’s blog. If I stop posting here, it may be because its more fun to challenge their idiocies. I’m very confused, I’ve been accused of being a closet Marxist, and of having “false consciousness”, in the same day.
May 8, 2007 - 1:03 pm 38. Buddy Larsen:Boyoboy–you gotta love that “false consciousness”. What a bulletproof concept: “believe ME, not your lyin’ eyes!”
May 8, 2007 - 1:21 pm