France Becomes Respectable Again
Posted on May 6, 2007
Sources are reporting that center-right French Presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won the election by about ten points in France. The results mark the latest European government to make a rightward lurch in political orientation in the last several years.
Despite waging a dirty campaign that included a spam campaign suggesting riots and damnation should Sarkozy win, the voters came out in droves to elect Sarkozy. The attacks were reminiscent of campaigns in America, particularly dirty and deceptive campaigns against Barry Goldwater. Many people went to the airwaves to diagnose Sarkozy with mental illness, much like leftists in this country do against George W. Bush. Voters in France have rejected the fear-mongering campaign of the socialists, much like voters rejected similar attempts by Democrats to do the same in this country. Once again we see demonstrated that in the battle of ideas, socialists fight unarmed.
Sarkozy is most known for his previous post as interior minister by holding a tough law and order stand. The Paris riots by Muslim immigrants were considered stoked by Sarkozy who took a tough stand against such behavior. The fact that such a large turnout fell strongly behind Sarkozy indicates that France will not go silently into the night.
It is likely that France-U.S. relations will see a marked improvement with this election. Socialist candidate Royal not only ran a smear campaign, but was the latest socialist to run against George W. Bush and lose (a peculiar choice considering Bush wasn't on the French ballot). France for the past few years has been antagonistic towards the United States under Chirac including undermining the Iraq sanctions in the Oil-for-Food scandal which led to the ultimate renewal of conflict with Iraq. Sarkozy will likely end such antagonism and return to being a helpful international partner again.
The most telling part of the election results is that what is considered a bellwether bastion of socialism in Europe has overwhelmingly voted to reject socialist politics. Royal clearly made her platform of strong welfare policies and social platforms known and Sarkozy clearly indicated that he wanted to cut down on high unemployment by getting people to work. France follows Germany in moving to more conservative policies and governments.
This is little less than a revolution in France against an ideology that has become stagnant and a demonstrable failure. France's economy and society have been dragging behind the rest of the world and the French citizenry has decided they had enough. Likely pundits will shake their heads at voters deciding against "their own economic self-interest."
The lesson in France is that whenever conservatism is on the ballot (unhindered by corruption, bad implementation of policies, or personal problems) conservatism wins. Today France joins the world in adopting more sane economic and governmental policies.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “France Becomes Respectable Again”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Whatever will the Hollywood elite do when they can no longer point to France as the shining example of what a Socialist America could be? (Paging Johnny Depp)
“Respectable”? By what criteria?
The mere election of Sarkozy does not make France respectable. At least not in the eyes of this conservative. As with an individual, respect must be earned. France has a looooonnnnggg way to go before they earn mine.
Didn’t hurt that Sarkozy’s opponent was a flaming lunatic!
It’s a moral compass thing, gary.
You wouldn’t understand.
.
Is that the same conservative “moral compass” thing that allows right-wing
pundits to lie, flip-flop, justify corruption and ineptitude, seek to subvert
the democratic process by seeking to impose a right-wing hegemony, and in the
end practice hypocricy on a breathtaking level of brazenness? Oh yes, THAT
moral compass.
gary, I’d say electing someone who’s not a sneering, anti-American, Marxist bigot would qualify as an uptick in that country’s respectability. Of course this obvious conclusion may be lost on someone who agrees with said sneering, anti-American, Marxist bigot.
Do you think it would have been better for France to have elected Royal? If so, please explain why it is better for America to have an “ally” elect someone who hates this country rather than someone who embraces it.
First, I don’t consider it a requirement for someone to agree, either with my
personal positions or with American policies du jour, in order to be “respectable”
or “moral.” Only extremists insist on agreement as a pre-requisite for “morality.”
Second, Glib’s characterizations are a case of one extremist calling another
extremist names. Sure, Royal is a leftist, but she’s no blazing Marxist. In
fact, she would represent what could be called a “conservative” stance, in that
she wishes to preserve the social status quo (which may not be excellent economically,
but is amazingly pro-traditional family values).
To be honest, on the world stage, I don’t think it matters who the French
elect. France is increasingly irrelevent on the world diplomatic stage, except
inasmuch as the country lends its support to EU solidarity, and inasmuch as
France is a major international armaments dealer (but not the biggest–that
honor goes to–ta da!!–the good ol’ USofA). Once again, concerning the expected
support “allies” should give…if someone is following a destructive, boneheaded
path, you’re not doing anyone a favor by drawing your own country down that
destructive, boneheaded path. Disagreement does not automatically mean treasonous
opposition–except in a right-wing extremist’s pained imagination.
“Do you think it would have been better for France to have elected Royal? If so, please explain why it is better for America to have an “ally†elect someone who hates this country rather than someone who embraces it.”
gary — can you answer a simple question about what is better for America?
Royal “no blazing Marxist?!?!?!” Only a fellow-traveler would make such a claim.
With typical muddle-headedness gary, you make this claim, but then go on to characterize her as an extremist in order to make a point about me. Which is it gary?
“pro-traditional family values”
The government controlling every aspect of every individual’s and every family’s life is “pro-traditional family values.” Maybe in your world, gary. I guess that’s why the French are marrying and reproducing at such an autobahn clip, huh? Must be the government’s commitment to “pro-traditional family values.” Yeah, that’s what the French are known for, especially the unmarried co-habiting Royal, the true symbol of French “pro-traditional family values.”
Glib, this may be news to someone who thinks in such primary colors, but the
left is not a single, monolithic belief system, anymore than the right-wing.
Therefore, one can be a leftist extremist without being a Marxist in the same
way that you can be rightist extremist and not be a neo-Nazi–can’t you?
What is better for America? In terms of the French election, I answered that
question–or did that go over your head, too?
Wow gary, your joints must be aching…all the contortionism you are forced to perform.
Let me quote you:
“Glib’s characterizations are a case of one extremist calling another
extremist names. Sure, Royal is a leftist, but she’s no blazing Marxist. In
fact, she would represent what could be called a “conservative†stance, in that
she wishes to preserve the social status quo (which may not be excellent economically,
but is amazingly pro-traditional family values).”
First you say she’s an extremist (”one extremist calling another extremist names”), then you say she’s not. In fact, you go so far to say that she is a “conservative” and “pro-traditional family values.” Not only have you completely contradicted yourself, your latter characterizations are so ludicrous they deserve to be dignified no more.
Let’s just let the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan speak with you about this: “You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.â€
“Primary colors?” What, like ROY G BIV? Oh please gary…another typical dogmatic leftist, pretend-relativist canard. You have demonstrated that you are as doctrinaire, Black & White, as anyone you criticize for being so. Royal is certainly a Leftist Marxist extremist and Leftism is inescapably branded and defined by Marxism/Socialism, whether you like it or not gary. The Left is far more politically monochrome than the Right.
I’m “contradicting” myself only because YOU insist that the left is monolithic
and monochromatic, while claiming otherwise for the right. And yet it doesn’t
occur to you that your own claims are just as valid when they’re hurled back
at you. “But they’re not!” you claim. Cue Moynihan’s quote.
gary, you make this too easy.
1) In one sentence you say Royal is an extremist
2) In the next sentence say the exact opposite
Hate to have to kindergarten this up for you, stud, but your contradiction that has nothing to do with whether or not the ranks of the Left is stocked with a bunch of robots. That was an ancillary point.
The main point is that you completely contradicted yourself and you still can’t/won’t see it. You should really just admit you’ve been caught and you’d look a lot less silly than you are looking right about now.
The difference between us is not simply ideological. I support my arguments, you just argue.
Perfect example is your comment above. I demonstrated (using your very own words) where you have stumbled, but all you have to come back to me with is, “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” What “claims are just as valid when they’re hurled back at” me? Please gary, make supported point, please. If you point out a contradiction, I’ll admit it.
Here, let me spell it out for you so you can understand (and everyone else
can see how dishonest you’re being): I admitted that she was a leftist extremist
(statement 1); I denied that she was extremist Marxist (NOT statement 2). That’s a
contradiction ONLY because you INSIST that all leftists are Marxists (and vice
versa)–which is not true and only reveals your ignorance (or just dismissal)
of philosophical differences within the Left. But those distinctions utterly
escape you. Ah well, c’est la vie.
“a case of one extremist calling another extremist names.”
“she would represent what could be called a “conservative†stance, in that she wishes to preserve the social status quo (which may not be excellent economically, but is amazingly pro-traditional family values).”
Stand by your words. You went much further than “den[ying] that she was a Marxist,” as your own words above demonstrate.
You actually try to make the case that she is a moderate, even possibly center-Right. Ridulous!
What is the name of her party gary??? The SOCIALIST PARTY! Please spare me the nuances that distinguish Marxism and Socialism…it’s like trying to tell me there’s a big difference between a German Shepard turd and a wolf turd.
Anyway, I already said the “all Leftists are/are not Marxists” argument is ancillary, and in fact, irrelevant to the argument about your obvious contradiction. Anyway, where have I said “all Leftists are Marxists?” What originally got this (admittedly petty) spat off the ground is this statment:
“Royal “no blazing Marxist?!?!?!†Only a fellow-traveler would make such a claim.”
What this statement indicates is that Royal is a Marxist and that you are a Marxist. Now, I could be wrong about you (you did make a vague statement about Royal’s social policies being “which may not be excellent economically ” — so who are you Bill or Ted?) being a Marxist, but that is hardly the same me saying everyone on the Left is a Marxist. Leftists normally are defined in their economic thinking by some color or degree of Marxist “thinking,” and I don’t think that can be seriously disputed. But again, that has little to do with you in one breath calling Royal an “extremist” and in the next comparing the Socialist Party candidate to what could pass as a description of Bill O’Reilly.
If you have not been duped by what is the mainstream of “progressive” economic theory gary, you are the exception, not the rule. How do you define yourself on economic terms gary? If you are not in fact a dupe of the time-and-again failed “progressive” totalitarian economic theory, I’ll concede my error.