The French Election

On Sunday French voters will go to the polls and select a new president, choosing between Socialist Ségolène Royal and current president Jacques Chirac’s anointed successor, center-right UMP candidate Nicolas Sarkozy. The two candidates are very different in gender, style, and politics. One of them will become president of France, along with Germany one of the most influential countries in the European Union and a permanent veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council. Judging by the headlines in the online editions of leading U. S. newspapers it might as well not be happening at all.

Currently Sarkozy leads in the polls by something between 5 and 10 points. The campaign is offically over. The voting is on Sunday.

It hardly seems to me that France needs a re-assertion of socialist national economic policy, but, then, I’m not French.

Here’s a quick round-up on the candidates and the election.

AFOE has a commentary on the presidential debate. L’Ombre d’Olivier has thoughts of his own on the debate.

Der Spiegel has a round-up on the potential impact of the election on Europe.

‘Aqoul considers the implications of the election for French Middle Eastern and North African policy.

neo-neocon offers reflections on the election from this side of the Pond, comparing and contrasting Mme. Royal with Hillary Clinton.

5 comments… add one
  • I think that there are three very interesting domestic (French, not American, domestic) implications if Sarkozy wins:

    1. French foreign policy will become less anti-American. That would correspond with a lowering of anti-American rhetoric for domestic French consumption as well. Along with the election of Angela Merkel in Germany, the net result could be a European continental shift in opinion to a less anti-American — or at least less blatantly so — stance. This could actually be a boon for French domestic political ideas, since the stifling blanket of anti-Americanism has taken the place of thinking about internal French problems for a large part of the French elite.

    2. France could begin to resist the constant demands for special rights from the Muslim immigrants. It is unlikely that even Sarkozy would take on the banlieux, but it is quite likely that France under Sarkozy would make fewer concessions to the immigrants, and would probably be less willing to turn a blind eye to the gang rapes, arson and other criminality used to, essentially, extort concessions from a French elite that is embarrassed by the rabble. That said, I think that a large part of the French elite is essentially aristocratic, and does not see a difference between the immigrant poor and the native middle class.

    3. If Sarkozy can implement the reforms he has talked about around business investment, jobs, work rules, and other efforts to free the market a little from the velvet vice of social democracy, France’s economy could boom. It’s already a reasonably strong economy, with an intelligent and reasonably industrious work force. Freed from the stagnation imposed by socialism, the economy could boom. (Of course, this would be fought, hard, by the unions.)

    If Royale wins, I think France will be in big trouble, because there are very powerful forces trying to tear France apart politically and financially, and Royale seems to want to pander to, rather than confront, both. And I’m reasonably sure that she would blame all of her failures on America, though that’s hardly surprising for most of the world, which seems to see America as the world’s Prime Mover for some reason.

  • PD Shaw Link

    “It hardly seems to me that France needs a re-assertion of socialist national economic policy, but, then, I’m not French.”

    That seems to be a provocative statement from someone not a socialist.

    Jeff: It’s possible that 3 and 1 are in tension. Difficult reforms might be made easier with a dose of anti-Americanism. Its cheap currency.

  • Amusing such commentary:

    2. France could begin to resist the constant demands for special rights from the Muslim immigrants.

    Medcalf shows both his ignorance of Sarkozy’s approach and the banlieu. (Never mind the bizarre claim of “constant demands for special rights for Muslim immigrants….” which exist apparently in the head of irrational and ignorant Phobics.)

    Sarko is in fact in favour of “affirmative action” to solve the problem of discrimination, while changing immigration policy.

    It is unlikely that even Sarkozy would take on the banlieux, but it is quite likely that France under Sarkozy would make fewer concessions to the immigrants, and would probably be less willing to turn a blind eye to the gang rapes, arson and other criminality used to, essentially, extort concessions from a French elite that is embarrassed by the rabble.

    This is funny.

    Bigotted and racist, but funny in its … well imagination of French issues, Sarko’s policies (mind you, most banlieu residents are native born of 2nd and 3rd generation, the immigrant appellation is based on skin colour and not being the right religion (seperately and together).

    But using the typical language of the bigot, Medcalf rambles on in his usual profound ignorance.

    That said, I think that a large part of the French elite is essentially aristocratic, and does not see a difference between the immigrant poor and the native middle class.

    Ah. That said you are both a racist and an ignorant fuck who knows fuck all about France and the banlieu. Or French economics either.

  • Sticks and stones, Lounsbury. Sticks and stones.

  • Well, if you’d stop making pig-stupid and ignorant, not to mentioned bigoted, comments, I would not have cause to point out your idiocy, now would I?

    At least stick to things you know, if only dimly, something about.

Leave a Comment