Royal concedes to Sarkozy

[neonlyte]

85.5% of eligible voters turned out.
Royal 47% - Sarkozy 53%

It was a good day for democracy, now let's hope there is no trouble.

 

[rgraham666]

I wouldn't bet on it.

I suspect that Sarkozy is going to try to prove he has le forte main, tout de suite. From what I've read he believes there's no other way 'the scum' can be led.

I just had an unpleasant thought. Why do I think Le Pen is going to get the French equivalent of Attorney General?

Sigh. Paranoia's a real bitch to live with. (mostly)

 

[neonlyte]

I wouldn't bet on it.

I suspect that Sarkozy is going to try to prove he has le forte main, tout de suite. From what I've read he believes there's no other way 'the scum' can be led.

I just had an unpleasant thought. Why do I think Le Pen is going to get the French equivalent of Attorney General?

Sigh. Paranoia's a real bitch to live with. (mostly)

We should form a Club, Rob

I think (and hope) Le Pen's days are behind him. Sarkozy made one wrong political decision when he refused to back Chirac twelve years ago, I'll trust that he knows Le Pen wouldn't past muster with the rest of the Party.

 

[rgraham666]

An interesting column by Paul Krugman about a past French election.

His point about 'the angry people' is well taken.

 

[neonlyte]

An interesting column by Paul Krugman about a past French election.

His point about 'the angry people' is well taken.

Thanks, Rob. The difference between then and now is Le Pen told his 11%(?) of voters in the first round not to vote at all. In fact, the turnout for the second round was just higher. They ignored him and hitched themselves to Sarkozy's coat tails.

The polarization of a two party run-off bothers me, I feel we all need to be moving toward the centre, else Krugman's opinion might turn into reality.

 

[rgraham666]

The problem with democracy, as always, is whether people actually believe in democratic principles.

Democracy, as my favourite author points out, is about balance. A society consists of many, many forces and needs. These have to be chosen amongst carefully and policy must be subtle.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand this. The biggest giveaway is when people refer to 'winning elections'. Technically they're correct. But in actuality 'winning' undermines democracy. 'Winning' means that you regard an election as a race to power rather than census of society.

So when you win, you're gaining the power alone and forgetting about the responsibility to society as a whole.

It doesn't really matter if a person is 'left' or 'right' as long as they are aware that there are other concerns than the ones dealt with by their political philosophy. If they understand about balance, they'll do a good job on the whole. If not, then society gets out of balance, with very unpleasant results.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Did it escape anyone's notice that people think that Sarkozy is "pro-American", when he advocates protectionism that might actually hurt American exports? Just a point.

I am very much an American and interested in advancing my country's interests, I admit, but there are other concerns as well. Things like human rights, for instance. This is the same man who essentially chose repression to deal with the protests. Yes, rioting is bad and should be stopped. But there are riots and protests. He seems eager to repress the Islamic minority in France and restrict immigration in general. Why does that seem a bit chilling?

On the other hand, Royal seems to blind to anything but dry Marxist dogma, from what I can tell. She is also behind the times.

The center in France was best represented by the "blank ballot" crowd. I know that I would have cast one, if I had been French and voting yesterday. I wonder if Mr. Sarkozy will even pay attention to the silent, but angry minority who refused to vote for either him or his opponent.

Talk about not listening to anyone but your own camp! We've had that kind of divisive and doctrinaire "leadership" here in America, and Americans finally got fed up last year. They did their best to send a message to both parties, but I doubt that either are listening in DC, any more than Sarkozy will listen in the Elysee Palace.

I'm thinking that his shortened 5-year term might not be such a bad thing.

 

[colddiesel]

I have no particular regard for France or the French but we must concede their democracy is far healthier than either the USA or UK in that at least their people are not so fed up they don't bother to vote.

An 85% turnout is about double what we get and perhaps the French have something to teach us in this respect.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Royal should be relieved to have lost. With any luck, her shoulders and neck should now be safe from George Bush's roaming hands and fickle fingers.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Royal should be relieved to have lost. With any luck, her shoulders and neck should now be safe from George Bush's roaming hands and fickle fingers.

Rumple Foreskin

Yeah, and since she is prettier than Merkel, that is an even greater danger. The only thing that might prevent it in her case is that Bush based much of his foreign policy on a mindless hatred of France. Then again, I wouldn't put it past him to chose to "reconcile" that way. After all, she's not married- she's just "living in sin". Evidently, Bush is "old-school" about adultery, from his groping habits- it's a sin for women, but not for men, in his eyes.

 

[shereads]

Sigh. Paranoia's a real bitch to live with. (mostly)

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get us.

 

[shereads]

George Bush's roaming hands and fickle fingers.

God, Rumple. There's a word-picture that will give me nightmares.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I'd be willing to take a 3 to 1 bet that Royal will now put up a winning platform for the upcoming legislative elections. After the way this election went, I think the people will prefer to split the power.

 

[rgraham666]

I'll disagree that Royal is a doctrinaire Marxist. She seems a bit further to the left than most Socialists but hardly a Marxist.

Sarkozy resembles a Marxist far more. Indeed, like most people at that end of the political spectrum they agree with Marxists on how a capitalist society works. The only difference is that Marxists believe vicious Darwinian capitalism is bad and people like Sarkozy believe it is good.

The two groups also share the idea that economics is the only significant force in society.

There is, from my point of view, no significant difference between the two groups.

 

[oggbashan]

The problem with democracy, as always, is whether people actually believe in democratic principles.

Democracy, as my favourite author points out, is about balance. A society consists of many, many forces and needs. These have to be chosen amongst carefully and policy must be subtle.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand this. The biggest giveaway is when people refer to 'winning elections'. Technically they're correct. But in actuality 'winning' undermines democracy. 'Winning' means that you regard an election as a race to power rather than census of society.

So when you win, you're gaining the power alone and forgetting about the responsibility to society as a whole.

It doesn't really matter if a person is 'left' or 'right' as long as they are aware that there are other concerns than the ones dealt with by their political philosophy. If they understand about balance, they'll do a good job on the whole. If not, then society gets out of balance, with very unpleasant results.

I was pleased last week with the result of the elections for our local Parish Council. A Parish Council has little power and even less money. The local one has worked with other people and organisations and has consistently delivered much more than it is funded to do. The Parish Clerk, their only employee came second in an England-wide competition for her work.

BUT - they have been constantly criticised by a one-issue group who were annoyed that facilities were provided for local teenagers to kick a ball about, to play basketball or volleyball. That group thinks that teenagers are universally evil and should be seen but not heard, and preferably not seen.

The existing Parish Councillors knew they would be challenged in last week's election. They decided to ditch their party political labels (Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green) and stand only on their record of achievements as a united group. In practice they had worked together as individuals, not as party representatives.

The opposition also hid their party affiliations and stood as an organisation opposed to the teenagers' facilities, which they would remove. The majority of them are actually from the UK Independence Party - a right wing anti-foreigner group.

The result? The least popular of the existing councillors had 50% more votes than the highest of the opposition. The existing councillors were elected resoundingly.

Late teenagers have votes. Elder siblings have votes. Parents have votes. People can tell when politicians are actually working for the community and not for themselves. Being "For" something is more attractive than being "Against".

That village will benefit from three more years of hard (unpaid) work by the councillors who have already worked hard for them.

Local democracy lives!

Og

PS. Some of the local councillors spent the days before the election up to their knees in mud clearing the village pond when some thought they should have been out pressing the flesh. Many people noticed the difference - doing instead of talking.

 

[Guest]

Royal should be relieved to have lost. With any luck, her shoulders and neck should now be safe from George Bush's roaming hands and fickle fingers.

Rumple Foreskin

Ewww.

Add my nightmares to sher's.

 

[rgraham666]

That's a hell of an uplifting story, ogg.

 

[yevkassem72]

I'll disagree that Royal is a doctrinaire Marxist. She seems a bit further to the left than most Socialists but hardly a Marxist.

Sarkozy resembles a Marxist far more. Indeed, like most people at that end of the political spectrum they agree with Marxists on how a capitalist society works. The only difference is that Marxists believe vicious Darwinian capitalism is bad and people like Sarkozy believe it is good.

The two groups also share the idea that economics is the only significant force in society.

There is, from my point of view, no significant difference between the two groups.

What exactly is the European Left these days? Starting with Willy Brandt, they seem to have abandoned the Marxist ideology, but they are not exactly clear about what their philosophy is, anyway. It's not the center. The center is people like Francois Bayrou. They seem to be ideologically homeless. Then again, I'm no one to judge, having abandoned anarchy as unrealistic and impractical (though it still constitutes my utopian ideal).

So, what is the Left? The Right seems to have a hard-core, and to me, rather unattractive philosophy, at least when represented by Sarkozy. But they have one. People know what to expect from Sarkozy and his Fascist comrades. Protectionism, immigrant-bashing, and race-baiting. He's not the French George W. Bush- he's the French Pat Buchanan! Which is the major reason to oppose him. In its own way, the European New Right is as repulsive as the American New Right. Just a bit different in style.

Royal has a vague and rather bland platform. No wonder she lost. She lacked decision and firmness. People looked at her and didn't see a President that they could respect or understand. So, what exactly do Royal and her Socialist comrades believe? It seems as if they are unsure of whether the New Left is going to be Marxist or something else. They are like the Communists in much of Europe. They don't believe in Leninism, but they don't know what to replace it with.

That's my criticism.

 

[R. Richard]

I was pleased last week with the result of the elections for our local Parish Council. A Parish Council has little power and even less money. The local one has worked with other people and organisations and has consistently delivered much more than it is funded to do. The Parish Clerk, their only employee came second in an England-wide competition for her work.

BUT - they have been constantly criticised by a one-issue group who were annoyed that facilities were provided for local teenagers to kick a ball about, to play basketball or volleyball. That group thinks that teenagers are universally evil and should be seen but not heard, and preferably not seen.

The existing Parish Councillors knew they would be challenged in last week's election. They decided to ditch their party political labels (Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green) and stand only on their record of achievements as a united group. In practice they had worked together as individuals, not as party representatives.

The opposition also hid their party affiliations and stood as an organisation opposed to the teenagers' facilities, which they would remove. The majority of them are actually from the UK Independence Party - a right wing anti-foreigner group.

The result? The least popular of the existing councillors had 50% more votes than the highest of the opposition. The existing councillors were elected resoundingly.

Late teenagers have votes. Elder siblings have votes. Parents have votes. People can tell when politicians are actually working for the community and not for themselves. Being "For" something is more attractive than being "Against".

That village will benefit from three more years of hard (unpaid) work by the councillors who have already worked hard for them.

Local democracy lives!

Og

PS. Some of the local councillors spent the days before the election up to their knees in mud clearing the village pond when some thought they should have been out pressing the flesh. Many people noticed the difference - doing instead of talking.

Og:
Your post indicates an outbreak of sanity in your Parish! Perhaps it is contageous and will spread. Tell the Parish Council to keep up the good work.

 

[oggbashan]

Turnout

The high turnout for the French presidential contests suggest two things to me:

1. French democracy is alive and kicking if such a high proportion of the electorate want to vote, and

2. France is seriously divided against itself. The high turnout could also be caused by fear of the opposition. The campaign presented Royal and Sarkozy as irreconciliable opposites. President-to-be Sarkozy is going to have to win some acquiesence from some of Royal's supporters if he is going to have any chance of introducing the reforms he wants. He has a mountain to climb and he is unlikely to do it successfully in the teeth of ferocious opposition. He has to persuade, explain, educate and cajole to change France. Can he do it? Time will tell.

Og

 

[yevkassem72]

The high turnout for the French presidential contests suggest two things to me:

1. French democracy is alive and kicking if such a high proportion of the electorate want to vote, and

2. France is seriously divided against itself. The high turnout could also be caused by fear of the opposition. The campaign presented Royal and Sarkozy as irreconciliable opposites. President-to-be Sarkozy is going to have to win some acquiesence from some of Royal's supporters if he is going to have any chance of introducing the reforms he wants. He has a mountain to climb and he is unlikely to do it successfully in the teeth of ferocious opposition. He has to persuade, explain, educate and cajole to change France. Can he do it? Time will tell.

Og

I'd say that he needs to court Bayrou in order to govern. Same with the Socialists. Both will need Bayrou to govern, because it seems likely that the parliamentary elections will give the center a strong third place, at the very least. A center-right or center-left coalition will be needed.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

An interesting column by Paul Krugman about a past French election.

His point about 'the angry people' is well taken.

Rob, Krugman’s analysis just isn’t right.

Sure, in 2002 Jospin wasn’t liked very much, was considered pompous and boring and inspired little enthusiasm, but he lost because Chirac was hated. Chirac was regarded as corrupt, greedy, lazy and arrogant. In the first round many right wing supporters wanted to give him a kicking.

Look at the figures;

2002 %
Chirac 19.9
Le Pen 16.9
Jospin 16.2

2007%
Sarko 30.5
Le Pen 11.0
Ségo 25.7

Le Pen, as the only real right wing alternative, mopped up the anti-Chirac protest vote. The anti-Jospin left picked up over 15 % but spread between several candidates. If Chirac hadn’t been so disliked, Jospin would have got through to the second round.

Also, if the Socialist Government was so admired, why was it trounced out of office four weeks later?

In 2007, with two popular mainstream candidates, the extremes were less important. The gaggle of far-left candidates dropped back to 10% total.

Again, Krugman is wrong to label Le Pen’s supporters as ‘angry’. ‘Scared’ is probably closer to the mark. Against the norm of most European far-right parties, which tend to be urban and youngish, ‘lepenistes’ tend to be rural and older. They hate the European Union (despite the ludicrously high subsidies) because they blame it for the decline of French agriculture. In 2002 there was a classic photo of Chirac patting a cow at the Paris Agricultural show to woo Le Pen voters.

They have lived through the massive and mismanaged post-war immigration from North Africa which has led to ghettoes and unemployment and this unfairly prejudices against all immigration.

Le Pen calls them the people ‘d’en bas’, the people from down there. However misguided and minority their views, what they really want is to be left alone in the past – in no way can they be compared with the bully-boy tactics of the Republican fundamentalists.

 

[rgraham666]

And I'll disagree with you, elfin. Anger is always the motivator at the extremes of the political spectrum. I'll also attribute the fact that the far right in France has had so little success so far is due to the political organization in France. Unlike in the States there are a number of parties covering that end of the spectrum making it difficult for the angry people to pull a coup d'état on a single party as happened in the States.

Yv? One of the biggest problems with the left these days is that political language won't support it. It's difficult to speak about something if you don't have the vocabulary.

And the political vocabulary in the West now belongs to the right the same way that it belonged to the Marxists in the Soviet Union. To be accepted at all, you have to speak in terms of too high taxes, too powerful government, too many restrictions on business. This means large portions of society simply can't be dealt with, we no longer have the vocabulary for it.

This, I believe, is why the left looks so rootless these days. The new vocabulary won't let them say what they mean, and the old vocabulary is no longer accepted for political discourse.

My own political philosophy is the same as my personal philosophy. There's enough pain in the universe without me adding to the total.

 

[yevkassem72]

As one who would prefer an anarchist utopia, but knows that it would never work, I have to say that I am torn. I like the libertarian bent of some on the right, but I don't want to replace repressive, oppressive bureaucrats with repressive, oppressive all-powerful robber barons again.

I don't trust the Nanny State and I don't trust the corporations. And I doubt that LaSalle's syndicalist system will ever be truly established, well, at least not outside Israel (where it exists in some form, through kibbutzim and Histadrut). I am stuck and frankly quite cynical right now.

 

[rgraham666]

Any political system can work if the people invested with the power in it are wise, restrained and willing to sacrifice for the good of society.

Unfortunately most political systems quickly devolve into a quest for authority without responsibility and a grab for all the perks that can be taken through that authority.

As Robert A. Heinlein put it, "Roman mothers used to tell their sons, 'Come back with your shield or on it.' Later this custom declined. So did Rome."