French Presidential Election

[arensky]

French or not, what do you think of the ongoing battle between Sego and Sarko? More interesting than most current politics; a great nation stands at a crossroads, will it go neo-conservative or socialist? How would the election of one or the other affect your country, if you are not French?

The choices in this instance are not good, imo. Both candidates appear to me to be the worst sort of professional politician, each with significant professional and personal flaws; the capitalist careerist vs. the naive idealist. If I was French (I am American) I would probably have voted for Bayrou yesterday. Today, I would probably be grudgingly supporting Sarkozy; his administration might bring a measure of financial stability to a shaky system in uncertain times. OTH, he seems to be a bit on the repressive side. And there are French issues i don't entirely understand, such as immigration (although we have that problem too ours has a different dynamic) and France vis a vis the EU. Not sure who would be better from the USA point of view, that depends on what happens here in 2008.

Discuss...

[pianistimo]

good question.  i have no answer.   

[prometheus]

It's hard to follow the debate. Both seem to have very paradoxical positions on many issues in an effort to please the voters.

But I think that Sarkozy is too much of a demagogue and populist. Like you describe them; capitalist careerist vs. the naive idealist. If Royal is truly a 'naive idealist' I would vote for her. But I 'fear' she is not. So I wonder why you pick Sarkozy over Royal.


What is best for the US? Well, a divided Europe is good for the US. Sarkozy is pro-protectionism while Royal wants to do something about the agriculture subsidies. You have to understand that France is by far the biggest receiver of these funds and that they are a thorn in the foot of many EU countries.
So from that perspective then maybe Sarkozy is better for the US because he is worse for Europe.

[arensky]

It's hard to follow the debate. Both seem to have very paradoxical positions on many issues in an effort to please the voters.

But I think that Sarkozy is too much of a demagogue and populist. Like you describe them; capitalist careerist vs. the naive idealist. If Royal is truly a 'naive idealist' I would vote for her. But I 'fear' she is not. So I wonder why you pick Sarkozy over Royal.

Actually I haven't voted yet. You are right about Royal, I think; she is not naive at all; she uses "liberalism" as a wolf uses sheep's clothing.  As you know, I am fairly conservative on many matters, particularly economic ones. Social programs and state welfare are nessacary to a point ( the USA has to do something about it's healthcare crisis, or we will have our own social meltdown; people are getting angry about it, even those who have insurance are dissatisfied with the system) but if they go too far, they are a drain on the economy. And if the economy of a nation is not competitive with other nations, it will stagnate, and evantually weaken; then the programs have to be eliminated anyway, and you have a population unprepared to deal with fending for itself. Look at what happened to Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Not sure if things there are better, worse or the same; different Russians tell me different things...

Royal is irritating because she is a child of privelege who uses "feel good" politics and speech to manipulate the public, probably to her own ends (I am not sure though), like Senator Clinton in the USA. And evidently she frequently has her foot in her mouth, particularly on foreign policy issues. Today she reached out to Bayrou, to form an alliance, after saying before Sunday that she would never do that, but he has kept quiet. Doesn't make her seem very consistent.  Sarkozy OTOH is an immigrant (or son of immigrants) who is anti- immigration  . OK, I'm in, the rest of you, too bad for you. That is inconsistent. It also smacks of racism, which I find abhorrent. This seems to be a big problem in France right now; last year I saw films of the riots, Arab teenagers vs. the police; rocks, tear gas, water cannon, clubs, the whole ugly civil unrest scenario. I hope I never experience that.

What is best for the US? Well, a divided Europe is good for the US. Sarkozy is pro-protectionism while Royal wants to do something about the agriculture subsidies. You have to understand that France is by far the biggest receiver of these funds and that they are a thorn in the foot of many EU countries.
So from that perspective then maybe Sarkozy is better for the US because he is worse for Europe.

If competition is good for an economy, then EU is a good thing for the USA. We need a challenge, there's too much complacency here. Of course, I see your point. But if we elect a "liberal" in 2008 and the French elect Sarkozy, he might find himself isolated.... or not.

I'm unclear about these agriculture subsidies, I saw a news story about a year ago but can't recall the details. Are they French government subsidies, or EU subsidies?

[ahinton]

good question.  i have no answer.   

'if you don't want to know the answer- don't ask the question'

Er...

? ? ?

Ives's The Unanswered Question has nothing on this, it would seem.

OK - back to the French...

Best,

Alistair

[arensky]

It's getting hot now...


https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21622722-2703,00.html

[arensky]

It's getting hot now...


https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21622722-2703,00.html

Indeed, perhaps...


https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003681553_france26.html

[prometheus]

Actually I haven't voted yet.

You have a french citizenship?

As you know, I am fairly conservative on many matters, particularly economic ones. Social programs and state welfare are nessacary to a point...

Both want to have social reforms, which is distinct about them in the whole political landscape. So both are progressive. of course Royal wants to have more socialist fail saves than Sarkozy.

This seems to be a big problem in France right now; last year I saw films of the riots, Arab teenagers vs. the police; rocks, tear gas, water cannon, clubs, the whole ugly civil unrest scenario. I hope I never experience that.

The riots where in 2005. And they were largely provoced by Sarkozy by calling the social outcasts in the ghetto's 'scum'. Now I have seen that this actually is taken a bit out of context by the media. The socially excluded people that live in these ghetto's mainly people with backgrounds in former French colonies, felt like Sarkozy called them all outcasts, and not the minority of them causing trouble.

Some people have said that these people will be more angry with Sarkozy as the president that with the racist Le Pen. If Sarkozy wins there may well be new riots.

The political system in France is set up in such a way that these people won't have a voice in politics.

 

If competition is good for an economy, then EU is a good thing for the USA.

I didn't mean in economy that much. If Europe is united they can form a political block against the US. If Europe as a whole was united against the Iraq war then it might not have happened at all.

So a divided Europe is good in that respect, I didn't really mean it in an economic sense.

I'm unclear about these agriculture subsidies, I saw a news story about a year ago but can't recall the details. Are they French government subsidies, or EU subsidies?

44% of the EU buget is spend on agriculture subsidies(CAP). The whole system was put up to benefit France specifically. I don't know how much France receives each year but they receive the most money.

Of course many other countries want to reform this. Remeber Thatcher: "I want my money back." Some countries are net receivers of EU funds, other's are net contributers to EU funds.

Another thing is protecting the EU market, which keeps third world countries poor.

So reforming this is a huge part of reforming the EU. And France traditionally opposes this, for obvious reasons.

Royal wants to reform the CAP to favour smaller farmers and to protect the enviroment. So that is at least a step towards concessions which will make negociations in the EU easier.

Also Sarkozy wants to withdraw from Afghanistan. That is not going to sit well with some other NATO partners, who are very angry some members refuse to help.

Anyway, Bayrou has said he won't vote for Sarkozy because he polarises the country.

[arensky]

You have a french citizenship?

No, I meant voting in this poll. I have since elected to "not vote for either one".

Both want to have social reforms, which is distinct about them in the whole political landscape. So both are progressive. of course Royal wants to have more socialist fail saves than Sarkozy.

The riots where in 2005. And they were largely provoced by Sarkozy by calling the social outcasts in the ghetto's 'scum'. Now I have seen that this actually is taken a bit out of context by the media. The socially excluded people that live in these ghetto's mainly people with backgrounds in former French colonies, felt like Sarkozy called them all outcasts, and not the minority of them causing trouble.

Some people have said that these people will be more angry with Sarkozy as the president that with the racist Le Pen. If Sarkozy wins there may well be new riots.

How charming. If the North Africans would be happier with Le Pen that's really something. Perhaps they feel that Le Pen is at least honest, and not a double-talker. Or maybe he didn't call them scum.

The political system in France is set up in such a way that these people won't have a voice in politics.

Most nations are set up that way, so that minorites (particularly racial ones) are kept down and muzzled. Things have changed for the better around the world in the last fifty years (it seems to me) but there's still work to be done.

 

I didn't mean in economy that much. If Europe is united they can form a political block against the US. If Europe as a whole was united against the Iraq war then it might not have happened at all.

So a divided Europe is good in that respect, I didn't really mean it in an economic sense.

Ok. This is very true.

I don't think EU/Europe will ever be completely united; too many languges, different cultures, regional and economic interests.

44% of the EU buget is spend on agriculture subsidies(CAP). The whole system was put up to benefit France specifically. I don't know how much France receives each year but they receive the most money.

Of course many other countries want to reform this. Remeber Thatcher: "I want my money back." Some countries are net receivers of EU funds, other's are net contributers to EU funds.

Another thing is protecting the EU market, which keeps third world countries poor.

So reforming this is a huge part of reforming the EU. And France traditionally opposes this, for obvious reasons.

Royal wants to reform the CAP to favour smaller farmers and to protect the enviroment. So that is at least a step towards concessions which will make negociations in the EU easier.

Well of course most French won't want to reform a sweet racket like that! Royal may gain some rural votes on her position (don't know enough to have an opinion) but the urban vote would go to Sarkozy on that issue, it seems to me. Thanks for clarifying this.

Also Sarkozy wants to withdraw from Afghanistan. That is not going to sit well with some other NATO partners, who are very angry some members refuse to help.

Anyway, Bayrou has said he won't vote for Sarkozy because he polarises the country.

Well the French have had an independent foreign policy since De Gaulle; they have only been a nominal NATO member since 1966. What is Royal's position on Afghanistan? I can't imagine that she would support a continued French military presence there.

Does Bayrou think that Royal will not polarise France? Seems to me it's already quite polarised, like the USA, which faces similar problems.

[arensky]

It's Sarko, 53% to Royal's 47%.

We'll see what happens now...

[pianogeek_cz]

It's already happening. Protests, regardless of the fact that Sego & co. admitted defeat without reservations and told her supporters to stop protesting and focus on the next elections blah blah...

We'll see whether it develops into something major. I'd say not.