Sarkozy, a pro-America, pro-Bush politician has won the French Presidency 53% to 47%. Violence has erupted (although the car burnings never really stopped) in the wake of this victory. Interestingly Socialist Segolene Royal seems to have really missed votes in what would seem to be her core constituency including women.

Questions For Debate:
Is this election likely to make a radical change in French politics?
Does this election signal an era of Franco-American co-operation and overt friendship?
Will Sarkozy and Merkel change Europe's attitude towards America?
Do you think the influx of Muslims in France had something to do with this election result?



Edited to remove unconstructive question from an otherwise good topic. - Jaime

I'd hesitate to say there will be any "radical" change. But, there will be a change. Think about it, Sarkozy has proposed extending the work week and cutting taxes on overtime. Who would have thought you'd ever hear a Frenchman talk about cutting taxes? At anytime?! This election result happened because the French people finally had enough of the reckless, socialist policies of their socialist government. Hey, if the liberals can say "the people have spoken" when they get elected. Then I can say it when a conservative gets elected. We can only hope the trend of female candidates losing elections continues in this country.


Edited to remove response to removed debate question - Jaime

Who would have thought it? People who know governments can influence the economy in two ways, through fiscal and budgetary policies. People who know traditionally there was a lot of interaction between these policies in domestic planning, but supranational institutions like the European Central Bank, established by the European Union, doesn't allow member states to play with inflation and encourage tourism and generate income to sustain the ever-popular welfare state. People who know that imposing deficit caps on member states encourages welfare states to increase taxation. And people who know that eventually, taxation reaches an unpopular level, and the trend reverses, at least momentarily.

Is this election likely to make a radical change in French politics?
Nope. If Sarkozy does too much too fast he'll have to deal with another union infrastructure shut down. Anyone who wants to kill the welfare state had better de-industrialize first.

Does this election signal an era of Franco-American co-operation and overt friendship?
I'd like to think Freedom Fries® and the federal brain drain it signaled was not the defining moment of French-American relations. I don't think France has vetoed sanctions against Iran lately.

Will Sarkozy and Merkel change Europe's attitude towards America?
Nope. Believe it or not, Europeans have more important things on their minds than America.

Do you think the influx of Muslims in France had something to do with this election result?
I'm not completely sure but I think this was more of an economic referendum than immigration issue.

Is this election likely to make a radical change in French politics?
Yes, but almost all of the change will be at the domestic level, followed by the European supranational level. And even that won't extend (yet) to the scrapping of agricultural subsidies (which America wants) because France is one of the major gainers from these arrangements. Northern Europeans, particularly Brits, talk enviously about the lovely produce available in French supermarkets and grocers, and admire the "green" credentials of a system that can source so much produce locally. (By law a large chunk of fresh produce has to be sourced within a certain distance of each store.)

Then in the next breath, a Briton or a German will complain about how much British and German taxes go to pay to suport the greedy, lazy French farmers, who would rather bur their own produce on the barricades than expose themselves to the market.

DUH! You don't suppose there's a connection between the vast tax subsidies to French agriculture and the quality and "green-ness" of their produce?

Does this election signal an era of Franco-American co-operation and overt friendship?

Franco-American co-operation never really stopped. Anyone remember "Nous sommes tout Americans maintenant" (je m'excuse! Je parle Francais plus mal) on 12 September 2001, or the French troops who went into Afghanistan, or the French cooperation in tracking down al-Quaeda members?

It just didn't happen over Iraq, because the French couldn't see it becoming anything more than a quagmire that sucked in terrorists from around the world and led to the deaths of thousands, including the foreign service personnel taking part in the invasion/occupation. They didn't think it was worth it, and said so. (And yes, they had some behind-the-stairs deals going on that were always going to make them examine the cons a lot more closely than the pros.) They were never officially opposed to the use of force in Iraq, just to the timing of the invasion, coming as it did just after WMD inspectors started getting cooperation.

While nobody sane would argue that removing Saddam was in itself a bad thing, can anyone really say that French predictions of a long, bloody, drawnout mess in the post-invasion period were less accurate than Bushco's predictions of civilians welcoming the invading allies with open arms?

Will Sarkozy and Merkel change Europe's attitude towards America?

Somewhat. I think the overt anti-American rhetoric from parts of the official French and German adiminstrations that occasionally crept into view under Chirac & Schroder will disappear.

But until such time as there's a change of administration in the USA, the frequent and ignorance-led anti-European tub-thumping that goes on over there from time to time won't change, and I think that has at least as much influence over Europe's attitude to American than who's in the Elysee Palace.

Do you think the influx of Muslims in France had something to do with this election result?

Not really. In fact, I'd say that from the way the French National Front under Jean-Marie le Pen has done much less well this time around than last time, that the French are now somewhat less concerned about Muslim immigration (or any other kind) than they have been.

IMO this is the long simmering reaction to failed Socialist policies common in Europe. These policies have lead to high unemployment and low growth in these countries for decades and people are finally fed up with the Left in France. Good for them.

And it should lead to better relations with France and well as increasing prosperity there. I have no idea how the Muslim immigration problem could have had a bearing on this election.

I doubt anyone can change Europe’s “attitude” on the US. We need to do that. But it cannot hurt.

What this will do is show, as France changes labor and other laws, that the failed policies of the Left can be reversed and that this is good for the country as a whole.

Riots can be expected.

Is this election likely to make a radical change in French politics?
I would say yes because Sarkozy's platform is a departure from his last 3 predecessors. His main duty is to reform the failing welfare policies and tackle the unemployment without throwing the opposition into an uproar. 2007 France may be the peak of unhindered social policy and could moderate many of the latin american countries from going "too far".

Does this election signal an era of Franco-American co-operation and overt friendship?
Not necessarily. I thought Chirac was friendly for a president. I think Sarkozy's nomination represents a renewed interest in domestic politics which has been previously hijacked by GWB's theatrical terror production.

Will Sarkozy and Merkel change Europe's attitude towards America?
Their respective countries, maybe, Europe as a whole, no.

Do you think the influx of Muslims in France had something to do with this election result?
Sarkozy has advocoted a closer integration of church and state and authoured a book called La République, les religions, l'espérance ("The Republic, Religions, and Hope"). He has argued for subsidies to be made available to mosques in order to encourage normalization into french society.

Will he bring neoconservatism to the french? Doubtful but possible. Time will tell.

Interesting. That doesn't strike me at all as conservative. Then again, conservative and liberal philosophies in Europe v. the U.S. don't line up. Funding mosques in France to horizontally integrate the Muslim community and funding churches in the U.S. under the banner of faith-based initiatives just pollutes religion and corrupts politics everywhere, in my opinion. I'm sure he will neo-liberalize the French domestic agenda. To what extent, I'm not sure, but I'm sure Wall Street is happy.

Who would have thought it? People who know governments can influence the economy in two ways, through fiscal and budgetary policies. People who know traditionally there was a lot of interaction between these policies in domestic planning, but supranational institutions like the European Central Bank, established by the European Union, doesn't allow member states to play with inflation and encourage tourism and generate income to sustain the ever-popular welfare state. People who know that imposing deficit caps on member states encourages welfare states to increase taxation. And people who know that eventually, taxation reaches an unpopular level, and the trend reverses, at least momentarily.

Well, sure. But the French are not exactly known for this kind of insight. You would agree?

Is this election likely to make a radical change in French politics?
Nope. If Sarkozy does too much too fast he'll have to deal with another union infrastructure shut down. Anyone who wants to kill the welfare state had better de-industrialize first.

Does this election signal an era of Franco-American co-operation and overt friendship?
I'd like to think Freedom Fries® and the federal brain drain it signaled was not the defining moment of French-American relations. I don't think France has vetoed sanctions against Iran lately.

Will Sarkozy and Merkel change Europe's attitude towards America?
Nope. Believe it or not, Europeans have more important things on their minds than America.

True enough. But, the question should really be, "Will nations like France and Germany look at the the American economic model, and see relief from their economic problems?" Not, whether or not they'll start celebrating the 4th of July. Me thinks, yes...

Do you think the influx of Muslims in France had something to do with this election result?
I'm not completely sure but I think this was more of an economic referendum than immigration issue.

What do you mean by that? The French, unlike other European Union member/welfare states, could not have forseen the Central Bank imposing a 2% cap on inflation and a 3% cap on deficits based on individual GDP? What exactly are you saying?

Are you... being patriotic?


What makes you think I had the 4th of July in mind, Gwinn?

They can do three things. They can incorporate the neo-liberal economic model, they can incorporate the neo-liberal economic model and reject some Central Bank policies (Italy has already broken the deficit cap and Germany may soon follow), or they can reject Central Bank policies, renounce EU membership and pass up on the billions of EU economic assistance encouraging states to liberalize (really, neo-liberalize) their markets.

If France isn't known to cut taxes, Mighty Gwinn, perhaps you should educate yourself on just that subject.


I didn't "come back" with economic and domestic planning. I started with it, and you responded to it.


That's your own ignorance speaking.


Right. That's why they've discussed tax cuts for years.


As I said, I started speaking about the Central Bank. Financial "insight" can mean a lot of things, and simply stating "this kind of insight" can mean virtually anything.


Oh I don't think anyone could possibly assume you're trying to be a patriotic Frenchman.


No. Perhaps not to the same extent as the U.S., but relatively speaking, France has bucked up.


Why do you say that? It seems like you're hysterically fine on your own.


Good for you. I don't see your point.

It's a technicality rather than topical point, but could you find a way to put your comments outside the quote tags of the person to whom you are responding please Gwinn? Alternatively, could you put your comments in bold, use a different colour, or make some other kind of distinction. It's just quite hard to read what you've said. (See how much easier it is to read comments once they are distinct from the quoted text?)

On the matter at hand, though (and yes, I am biased) most of the political commentary in Europe generally and the UK & France in particular has not been saying that Sarkozy is "the French Bush" or even "the French Reagan".

Thus far, the comparisons have not been to American politicians at all, and not just because of any anti-Americanism.

No.

Pointedly, the politician he's most often been compared to (to my knowledge, at least) is embodied in the much-used phrase "the French Thatcher". She was not really a neo-conservative in our modern understanding - more of a neo-liberal (in the old-fashioned sense).

The comparison to Thatcher has stronger parallels than any to the USA not only because of simple proximity (or anti-Americanism, though both of those may be a factor). But, importantly, the American economy has never really been a basket case after decades of left-leaning incompetence, as Britain undoubtedly was in the late 1970s.

That's not to say the USA has never been a basket case (Great Depression, anyone), but that was more through decades of right-leaning incompetence. A topic for another thread, though, I reckon.

So the perception that France is a basket case (much further from the truth than it ever was for the UK, as their continued productivity growth indicates) and has become one through left-wing mismanagement (35 hour weeks, etc. are pointed to as the problem) make it very easy to look at any populist right-winger and say "he or she is a bit like Mrs Thatcher", however strained the simile.

In any case, having lived through the British Thatcher years myself, I wish the French good luck. They'll need it, if the eventual (& hopefully significant) benefits of economic liberalisation are to outweigh the colossal damage done by decades of even higher unemployment, boom-and-bust economics, erosion of workers' rights well beyond what's necessary to make the labour force more efficient, quixotic populist persecution of unpopular minorities (in Thatcher's case, gays and coalminers). Especially as the French don't have a golden goose like North Sea Oil revenues to fund it all.

Having lived most of last year in France, i think i need to clear up a serious misconception about French politics. people have been referring to the left and right represented by Sarkozy and Royal, which is fair, but you need to understand that this is the left and right as defined by French politics, not American. Sarkozy (the 'right' one) is way WAY further left than pretty much any American politcian. He has also declared himself to be interested in improving foreign relations and pro-American. You can count however on his policies being only slightly more overtly pro-American than Chirac: his 'pro-American' position was a reacion to Royal, not a reaction to the status quo.

France has had some serious problems with the size of its civil service and the nature of its employment laws, both parties agreed they need to be changed (The CPE riots last year made that inevitable) but had different ways of changing it. Royal went after the 1980 Mitterrand vibe with her '100 points', similar to the platform of Miterrand, the socialist leader during the 1980s.


Nobody in France has been comparing anyone to American politicians because... why the heck would they? The political life of European nations does not revolve around the US. Frankly Sarkosy has been called a Gaullist and Royal was hoping to draw compairasons to Miterrand. The only people calling him the 'French Thatcher' are the english, and it is a terrible compairason, they have nothing whatsoever in common except that they stood to the right of their opponents in the election. The French economy, though not growing as quickly as the French would like, is in good shape and is nothing like the disasterous state of Britain pre-Thatcher.


Royal lost because when about 6 weeks ago she got a sudden spike in the polls, she reacted by leaning TOO far to the left, as opposed to courting the centre. The issues of the day in France are domestic ones, ones (no offence) most here will never even have heard of unless they read the French media.

Sarko represents a level of disillusionment among the people which epitimizes the problems with out of control spending. This is a problem which has more to do with over centralization of government assets rather than the traditional left/right arguement.

Of coarse the right will blame this on the inherent defects of socialism but I can make the same allegation to both democrats and republicans. In fact I can argue vociferously no previous adminstration even approaches the level of spending of the current one. Not a socialist issue.

What makes this guy interesting is that he could go either way on foreign policy. He could be held back by the left and be forced to maintain a very cumbersome level of taxation which contributes heavily to France's growing unemployment problem. He is conservative because he is promising less - whether he pulls a GWB and spends more will be up for debate. This is why Wall Street supports him. Now that I think about it, he strikes me as a hard-nosed Calderon of Mexico.